State, 471 S.W.2d 848 (.1971), for example, the Court considered the notice provided from the face of the indictment and found it insufficient. Texas law, therefore, requires that indictments charge a crime with sufficient particularity. Accordingly, “he accused is not required to anticipate any and all variant facts the state might hypothetically seek to establish.” Id. The en banc Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized that the requirement that indictments give adequate notice implicates “fundamental notions of fairness.” Drumm v. Article I, Section 10, of the Texas Constitution provides that, “n all criminal prosecutions the accused…shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof.” Additionally, Articles 21.04 and 21.11 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure require that an indictment must contain “that degree of certainty that will give the defendant notice of the particular offense with which he is charged” and “enable the accused to plead the judgment that may be given upon it in bar of any prosecution for the same offense.” Tex. Texas law guarantees an accused the right to have an indictment present fair notice of the charges against him. Texas Law Requires That The Indictment Sufficiently Describe The Alleged Criminal Conduct. The Indictment is Insufficient Under Texas Law.ġ. Consequently, the Indictment must be quashed. This information is essential to fair notice of the charges against Defendant. This Indictment does not explain how Defendant allegedly misapplied the property, nor does it allege with reasonable certainty the act or acts relied on to constitute the forbidden conduct committed with recklessness. This Indictment alleges that Damon Dewis did “intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly pursuant to one scheme and continuing course of conduct, misapply property, i.e., deal with property, to wit: money… which the defendant held as a fiduciary contrary to an agreement under which the defendant held the said property an in a manner that involved substantial risk of loss to Mark Swisher, the owner of the said property and the person for whose benefit the said property was held.” In support, Defendant would respectfully show as follows: I. TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN HAWK, JUDGE OF SAID COURT:ĭefendant Damon Dewis excepts to and moves for an order quashing the Indictment in this case because the Indictment violates his rights to receive fair and particularized notice of the charges against him under Texas law, the Texas Constitution, and the Constitution of the United States. TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF CRIMES CHARGED MOTION TO QUASH INDICTMENT AND EXCEPTIONS FOR FAILURE
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |