Ok I may be in dire need of pshchiatric help and have begun to dream about cases but I thought I read a case out of the Ct of Criminal Appeals that said we can just allege DWI without having to include the manner and means. Now I can't find the case and there is no thread here. I just simplified my last bunch of Grand Jury indictments and need to have the case for the Defense lawyers. Please tell me I am not dreaming this up!!!!

State v. Barbernell, --- S.W.3d ----, 2008 WL 2596934 at *6-7 (Tex. Crim. App. July 2, 2008) (State is not required to plead how it will prove “intoxicated” element of DWI);

Also available in the handy Case Summaries, provided by TDCAA.

Warnerbee, the ones of us who know and love you are certain you are in need of psychiatric help. The doctor will be in Galveston next month.

I'm trying to update our charge for DWI in response to this decision. Would someone share with me the language you are now using.

Our prose now reads as follows:


DEFENDANT IN THE COUNTY OF _________ AND STATE AFORESAID ON OR ABOUT THE ______ DAY OF _______, 2008, DID THEN AND THERE OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN A PUBLIC PLACE WHILE THE SAID DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED.

In many states, an indictment is sufficient for most crimes if it merely references the appropriate penal code section. What's up with Texas?

"You are charged with, and should be ready to answer for, any and all crimes you have ever committed. You know what you did."

JAS

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
In many states, an indictment is sufficient for most crimes if it merely references the appropriate penal code section. What's up with Texas?

---

I think our system works pretty well with the strict application of Studer.

Much better after the 1985 amendment to the Texas Constitution, limiting charging objections, but it has always seems a little silly to repeat what is already in the statute. Ignorance of the law is no defense, yet it is when the defendant claims he has "no idea" what the indictment means, despite a clear definition in the statute of a term.

Of course, in those states that provide less language in the indictment, they have to provide more information in separate discovery and notice documents. So, I guess it evens out.

Makes life much easier for us here in Texas now, but I can't help but worry about other states using our priors years down the road...

How many of us have seen an out of state prior indicating a defendant was convicted of "Operating Under the Influence of Itoxicating Liquors" or some other equally vague offense title from the 1990's. Trying to figure out if state X's "OUIIL" law from the 90's was similar enough to our DWI law (under 6701(l) VCS....) from the 90's is enough to make anyone crazy. Sure is easier when the out of state information/indictment clearly stated "...said defendant had an alcohol concentration greater than 0.08...."

The fact that I remembered 6701(l) VCS is somewhat disturbing in itself....

Has anyone dealt with a motion to quash the indictment because "by accident or mistake" is too vague and does not provide sufficient manner and means notice?

I don't stop at by "accident and mistake". I use wording along the lines of:

"THROUGH ACCIDENT AND MISTAKE, NAMELY: BY DRIVING SAID MOTOR VEHICLE INTO AND AGAINST A MOTOR VEHICLE OCCUPIED BY THE SAID (IP NAME),"

Is this what you are doing?

We just say "by accident or mistake." Is that too vague? Have you ever seen a challenge to it?