We just had a judge grant a defendant's objection to the jury charge re the "on or about" definition which properly informs the jury that proof that the offense took place before the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient. This was an indecency by exposure case with no witnesses other than the vic and the pervert. He had exposed himself to her on several occasions. She didn't write down the dates in her calendar so we had to estimate a date with "on or about" language in the indictment. The defendant (a two-time loser) didn't testify but had several witnesses testify that he was not in the area on that particular date alleged in the indictment. He, of course, didn't testify. The defense hammered on the date issue in closing, arguing that we had to prove that it took place on the exact date. The judge begrudingly allowed us to argue the S/L issue but the jury was understandably confused without the law in the charge. It was a tough case anyway but the lack of direction in the jury charge re "on or about" was the straw that broke the camel's back in my opinion. I'm so mad that I can't see straight. If the judge continues down this road, we are in deep weeds when trying a lot of cases, particularly child molestations. Any ideas on how to proceed?

That is horrible. Can you not educate the judge as to the state of the law...maybe show him some cases? Wow. Pathetic.

Wow, that's lame! Educate that judge that the "on or about" means that the State does not have to prove the exact date. All that needs to be shown is that on SOME date, either on the date alleged or any date prior to the alleged date as long as it's within the statute of limitations and before the presentment of the indictment or complaint and information, the defendant did the complained of offense.

Print the judge Hendrix v. State 150 S.W.3d 839 and/or Thomas v. State 753 S.W.2d 688 and have a polite conversation with him after you've staunched your rage.