Court Opinion

ID: 9770317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:58:22.070929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:38.836514
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
It is true that the Westbrook court did not expressly state in common ordinary English that Chatman and Chapman are not idem sonans as a matter of law. But, no one should question that the Westbrook court did hold: “Chapman and Chatman are not the same name.” (emphasis added)
What the majority fails to note is that Westbrook v. State, 23 Tex.App. 401, 5 S.W. 248 (1887), is cited in Branch’s Ann.Penal Code, Second Edition (1956), under the topics “Idem sonans,” and “Names and words held not idem sonans,” see Secs. 40 and 41. I did say in my original dissenting opinion that Westbrook stands for the proposition that “Chapman and Chatman are not the same name and are not idem sonans as a matter of law,” which was based on Branch’s interpretation of Westbrook. Branch’s is, of course, oftentimes cited as an authoritative work by this Court. In light of this authoritative work, I felt that interpretation could not be all bad. Thus, I agreed then and still agree with Branch’s that Chatman and Chapman are not idem sonans. Such interpretation actually radiates in the dark like a glow worm, giving off a brightness of light with such strength that no one should disagree with this interpretation, albeit, like the glow worm, it is not so stated.
The doctrine of idem sonans was alive, well, and breathing in Texas both long before and at the time Westbrook was decided almost 100 years ago, as evidenced by the numerous case citations in Branch’s supra, in Sec. 40 and 41. Yet today a majority of *599this Court holds that Chatman and Chapman are idem sonans, overruling West-brook’s long-standing implication that they are not. If the majority would only state with reasoning why Chatman and Chapman are now to be construed as sounding the same, perhaps I could agree with its decision. But, as it does not, I must respectfully dissent to its overruling Westbrook.
Martin, not Westbrook, is the case that should be overruled, for it does violence to the principle of law that the State has the burden to prove what it alleges in an indictment.
But what about Cox and Grant ? May I suggest to the majority that while it has its brush out, in erasing the “technicality” in this burglary case, which merely involves a fatal variance between the name of the complainant alleged and the name proved, that it go one step further and overrule Cox and Grant, or at least, for the bench and bar, distinguish them, if they can be distinguished from Martin.
What should be obvious to anyone who reads all of the opinions in this cause is that until this cause reached this Court, it is readily apparent that neither the trial court judge nor the prosecutor read this burglary indictment. The docket sheet reflects that the reading of the indictment was waived by appellant.1 Though what might be called another “technicality,” I always thought that a material variance between what was alleged and what was proved equals insufficient evidence. If insufficient evidence is not something that should be reviewed in the “interest of justice,” then when the past Legislature abolished Sec. 13 of Art. 40.09, perhaps it did so intentionally, and not, as many think, inadvertently. Cf., however, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
I feel the error is properly preserved for review, even though it must be reviewed pursuant to Art. 40.09, Sec. 13, V.A.C.C.P., or the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or Art. I, Sec. 19, of our own Constitution; there is a fatal variance between the allegata and probata, and the cause should be reversed, not affirmed.
I respectfully dissent.

. Prior to preparing this dissenting opinion, my staff, Jan Breland and Kenneth Schutze, and I once again carefully reviewed this record with a fine tooth comb to see where, other than in the indictment, the name “Cecil Chatman” might appear in the record on appeal. Our review once again confirms that only in the indictment is the name, “Cecil Chatman,” found in this record.