State v. Flores

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

State v. Flores

896 S.W.2d 198, 1995 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31, 1995 WL 118812

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 22, 1995

DocketNo. 841-94

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 896 S.W.2d 198 (State v. Flores) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Flores, 896 S.W.2d 198, 1995 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31, 1995 WL 118812 (Tex. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

MALONEY, Judge.

The trial court granted appellee’s motion to quash the first paragraph of the indictment charging him with involuntary manslaughter because it failed to allege the form of intoxicant the State intended to prove at trial. The State appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Flores, 878 S.W.2d 651 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1994). The State filed a petition for discretionary review, contending the Court of Appeals’ opinion conflicts with this Court’s opinion in Garcia v. State, 747 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.Crim. App.1988). The State argues that Garcia distinguished involuntary manslaughter from DWI cases, indicating that the type of intoxicant need not be alleged in involuntary manslaughter cases.

We recently addressed this exact issue in Saathoff v. State, 891 S.W.2d 264 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), reh’g denied (Jan. 25, 1995), where the State asserted the same claim as [199]*199the State asserts in the instant case. We rejected the State’s claim, holding that an indictment alleging involuntary manslaughter under Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 19.05(a)(2), upon proper request, must allege the intoxicant the State seeks to prove. Saathoff, at 265-66. We additionally held that the distinction made in Garcia is no longer valid under the current statute. Id. at 266.

Accordingly, we summarily grant the State’s petition for discretionary review and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Saathoff, supra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

MALONEY, Judge.

The trial court granted appellee’s motion to quash the first paragraph of the indictment charging him with involuntary manslaughter because it failed to allege the form of intoxicant the State intended to prove at trial. The State appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Flores, 878 S.W.2d 651 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1994). The State filed a petition for discretionary review, contending the Court of Appeals’ opinion conflicts with this Court’s opinion in Garcia v. State, 747 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.Crim. App.1988). The State argues that Garcia distinguished involuntary manslaughter from DWI cases, indicating that the type of intoxicant need not be alleged in involuntary manslaughter cases.

We recently addressed this exact issue in Saathoff v. State, 891 S.W.2d 264 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), reh’g denied (Jan. 25, 1995), where the State asserted the same claim as [199]*199the State asserts in the instant case. We rejected the State’s claim, holding that an indictment alleging involuntary manslaughter under Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 19.05(a)(2), upon proper request, must allege the intoxicant the State seeks to prove. Saathoff, at 265-66. We additionally held that the distinction made in Garcia is no longer valid under the current statute. Id. at 266.

Accordingly, we summarily grant the State’s petition for discretionary review and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Saathoff, supra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

896 S.W.2d 198, 1995 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31, 1995 WL 118812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-flores-texcrimapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack