Riley v. State, 2-82-032-CR
| Decision Date | 21 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-82-032-CR,2-82-032-CR |
| Citation | 658 S.W.2d 818 |
| Parties | Frank William RILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, State. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
M.P. Duncan, III, Denton, for appellant.
Brock Smith, Dist. Atty., Decatur, for appellee.
Before FENDER, C.J., and JORDAN and ASHWORTH, JJ.
Appellant, Frank William Riley, was convicted by a jury of murder and punishment was assessed at 40 years imprisonment. Riley asserts in two grounds of error that the indictment was fundamentally defective and that the trial court erred in not requiring in the court's charge a separate finding by the jury as to each count alleged in the indictment.
We affirm.
The indictment charging Riley reads in part:
did then and there intentionally and knowingly cause the death of an individual, Phyllis Sue McGoodwin, by shooting her with a firearm; Count Two: And the Grand Jurors of aforesaid do further present in and to said Court that Frank William Riley, on or about the 4th day of December, A.D. 1981, and before the presentment of this indictment in said County and State, did then and there intentionally, intending to cause serious bodily injury to an individual, Phyllis Sue McGoodwin, commit an act clearly dangerous to human life, to-wit: shoot the said Phyllis Sue McGoodwin with a firearm, thereby causing the death of the said Phyllis Sue McGoodwin; ...
Ground of error one asserts that "Count Two" of the indictment is fatally defective for failure to allege a culpable mental state. Riley argues that there is no culpable mental state coupled with the commission of an act clearly dangerous to human life because the indictment should be read so that "intentionally" modifies the parenthetical clause "intending to cause serious bodily injury to an individual, Phyllis Sue McGoodwin, ..."
This argument flies in the face of logic and the rules of English grammar. A fair reading of the sentence makes it obvious that "intentionally" modifies the commission of an act clearly dangerous to human life. It should not be read to create a redundancy as Riley argues, so that he intentionally intended to cause serious bodily injury. Ground of error one is overruled.
Ground of error two asserts error in the use of a general verdict form in the court's charge because the indictment charged Riley with two "counts" of murder. Riley relies on Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 37.07, § 1(c) (Vernon 1981) which requires a finding of guilty or not guilty in a separate verdict as to each count or offense submitted to the jury.
Riley's point would be well taken if he had actually been charged with two counts or offenses. Apparently, both the district attorney in preparing the indictment and Riley now are confusing "counts" with "paragraphs."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Callins v. State
...subset of a count and is used to charge alternative methods of committing the same statutory offense. Art. 21.24(b), V.A.C.C.P.; Riley v. State, 658 S.W.2d 818 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1983, no pet.). The presence of separate paragraphs within a single count, therefore, would not signify the c......
-
Brock v. State
...used to charge an offense and a ‘paragraph’ is a portion or subset of a count charging a method of committing that offense.” Riley v. State, 658 S.W.2d 818, 819 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1983, no pet.) ; see Callins v. State, 780 S.W.2d 176, 183 n. 12 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). “But since each ‘count’......
-
Watkins v. State, s. 2-96-110-C
...a method of committing the offense. See Dalton v. State, 898 S.W.2d 424, 426 n. 2 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1995, pet. ref'd); Riley v. State, 658 S.W.2d 818, 819 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1983, no pet.); see also Renfro v. State, 827 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd)......
-
Cover v. State
...An indictment may contain as many paragraphs as necessary to allege the various manner and means of committing one offense. Riley v. State, 658 S.W.2d 818, 820 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1983, n.w.h.). When such methods of committing the offense are alleged conjunctively, proof of any of the way......