Court Opinion

ID: 9647633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:43:30.747125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:51.481015
License: Public Domain

DIAL, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
In his written motion to quash, the defendant alleged as follows:
I.
Defendant is charged by information executed by Howard C. Berger, County Attorney of Wilson County, Texas.
II.
The information is defective in that it does not set forth the manner and means of intoxication. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. ann. art. 6701Z -1(a)(2) defines ‘intoxicated’ as
*657‘(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faeulites [sic] by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, or a combination of two or more of those substances into the body; or (B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more.’ The information does not set forth either (A) or (B) as the manner and means of intoxication thereby not charging an offense under the penal or civil laws of Texas.
III.
The information does not adequately and fairly inform the Defendant of the offense or offenses sought to be charged against him.
IV.
The information fails to allege the manner or means by which the Defendant became intoxicated thereby not giving precise notice to Defendant of the offense charged in order to bar subsequent prosecution for the same offense.
An objection voiced in the trial court should be sufficiently specific to apprise the judge of the nature of the complaint. Hackbarth v. State, 617 S.W.2d 944, 947 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). If the objection is without specificity, it presents nothing for review. Id.
The only specific complaint in the motion to quash was the language, “The information does not set forth either (A) or (B) as the manner and means of intoxication thereby not charging an offense under the penal or civil laws of Texas.”
In his brief filed with this Court under the third ground of error the defendant cites only subsection (A) of article 6701Í -1(a)(2). He argues, “In the information filed in this case, the manner or means of intoxication is not set forth, i.e., the information fails to allege the substance or combination thereof that caused the alleged intoxication of appellant.”
This is simply not the same error alleged in the trial court. A ground of error in an appellate brief must comport to the objection voiced at trial. It is not fair to a trial judge to be faced with a “shotgun” objection below and the surgeon’s knife on appeal. No error is shown. Graham v. State, 546 S.W.2d 605, 608 (Tex.Crim.App.1977).
I would affirm the conviction.