King v. State
| Decision Date | 06 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 62781,62781 |
| Citation | 594 S.W.2d 425 |
| Parties | Leon Rutherford KING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
This appeal follows conviction for the offense of capital murder pursuant to V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 19.03(a)(2). 1 The jury returned an affirmative finding to each of the special issues submitted under Article 37.071(b), V.A.C.C.P., and appellant's punishment was accordingly assessed at death. Article 37.071(e), supra.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.
Appellant's initial complaint is to the trial court's failure to quash the indictment returned against him which, omitting the formal portions, alleged:
(Appellant) . . . did then and there unlawfully while in the course of committing and attempting to commit kidnapping, aggravated rape and robbery, intentionally cause the death of Michael Clayton Underwood, hereafter styled the Complainant, by hitting, striking and beating the Complainant with a firearm.
And . . . (appellant) . . . did then and there intentionally and knowingly cause the death of Michael Clayton Underwood, hereafter styled the Complainant, by hitting, striking and beating the Complainant with a firearm.
By timely written motion to quash the indictment, appellant apprised the trial court that The trial court summarily overruled appellant's motion to quash.
This complaint, having been properly asserted, calls into question the adequacy of the constitutional requisite of notice to the accused of the facts constituting the charge against him; 2 consequently, the issue raised requires our consideration of it from his perspective. Cruise v. State, 587 S.W.2d 403 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). See generally Drumm v. State, 560 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).
In Granviel v. State, 552 S.W.2d 107 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), this Court determined that the trial court did not err in refusing to quash the indictment charging capital murder during the commission or attempted commission of aggravated rape, for its failure to allege the name of the intended victim of the aggravated rape. However, the trial court's ruling was not erroneous, because the motion to quash was not timely filed. In Goss v. State, 580 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), it was held that an indictment for aggravated rape should allege the person to whom the threat of imminent infliction of death 3 was directed, and that failure to grant a timely filed motion to quash aimed at such insufficiency constituted error. 4
It is clear that when criminal conduct, constituting an aggravated feature of an offense may be directed at a person other than the ultimate victim of the crime alleged, the specification of that person is a fact to which the accused is entitled should he request it by timely filed written motion to quash. Cf. Granviel v. State, supra; Goss v. State, supra; see also Vaughn v. State, 530 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).
The State argues that because we have held that it is unnecessary to allege the elements of the aggravating offense committed or attempted during the course of which the capital murder occurs, it follows that it is unnecessary to name the intended victim thereof, citing Hammett v. State, 578 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) and Smith v. State, 540 S.W.2d 693 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). It is true that these cases stand for the proposition that allegation of the constituent elements of the offense constituting the aggravating feature of a capital murder charge is unnecessary; however, the name of the person at whom the aggravating conduct is directed is not an essential element in such a context, 5 but rather, a fact which is crucial to the accused's preparation of his defense to the main charge of capital murder.
In the instant case, the testimony of Kelly Brei reflects that she and Michael Underwood, the deceased, left a nightclub at 11:30 p. m. on April 10, 1978, and as they approached their car, a pickup truck drove up. Appellant and Alan Carter, the occupants, forced Brei and Underwood into their pickup by use of a shotgun. After driving around threatening the victims with murder and rape, appellant and Carter stopped and directed Underwood to get out and lie on his stomach. With the shotgun, appellant hit Underwood in the head several times, then took money and a lighter from his body. Leaving the deceased, appellant and Carter drove Brei around a short while then stopped and took turns raping and sodomizing her. They eventually went to another place where the sexual assaults continued. Appellant and Carter both perused Brei's purse, taking a lipstick, watch, lighter and some earrings.
The State's brief asserts that
While this argument might be well taken had the State alleged only kidnapping and robbery as the aggravating offenses committed or attempted during which the murder occurred, such was not the case; Article 21.03, V.A.C.C.P., directs:
Everything should be stated in an indictment which is necessary to be proved.
By virtue of the State's additional allegation of aggravated rape, it was necessary that evidence of an attempted commission or commission of that conduct be presented by the State in order to meet its burden of proof. Indeed, such evidence was in fact adduced at trial through the testimony of the aggravated rape victim. As such, the name of the aggravated rape victim was clearly a fact which was critical to appellant's defense preparation, and he was entitled to the benefit of that fact upon his timely request therefor. See Cruise, supra. Furthermore, the allegation of such fact was required to precisely distinguish the conduct alleged from other conduct by the accused, and thereby insure a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Article 21.04, V.A.C.C.P.
We hold that appellant's motion to quash in the instant case entitled him to the allegation of facts sufficient to bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense and sufficient to give him precise notice of the offense with which he was charged. 6 American Plant Food Corp. v. State, 508 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). This being the case, the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to order the State to disclose the requested fact to appellant.
For the trial court's error in this respect, the judgment of conviction is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. Lynaugh
...a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. 1 King v. State, 594 S.W.2d 425 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (en banc).2 King v. State, 631 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (en banc).3 King v. Texas, 459 U.S. 928, 103 S.Ct. 238, 74 L.Ed.2......
-
Burks v. State
...Court in the instant appeal. In support of his claim of lack of notice, appellant relies upon this Court's decision in King v. State, 594 S.W.2d 425 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). In King, this Court stated, "the name of the person at whom the aggravating conduct is directed is ... a fact which is cruc......
-
Tompkins v. State
...is overruled. In overruling appellant's contention, we are not unmindful of what this Court stated and held in King v. State, 594 S.W.2d 425 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). There, this Court held that a capital murder indictment, which did not allege who the victim of the underlying offense was, contrar......
-
DeVaughn v. State
...question must be examined from the perspective of the accused in light of his constitutional presumption of innocence. King v. State, 594 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Cruise v. State, 587 S.W.2d 403 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Drumm v. State, 560 S.W.2d 944 Although cursory examination of our ......