Motion to Quash Indictment- David Cary

STATEOFTEXAS

§

§§INHEDISTRICTCOURTNo.366-82211-10 DAVIDCARY CO.LINCOUNTY,TEXAS 366'

H

JUDICIALDISTRICT-v.

1_

MotiontoQuashIndictment

TOTHEHONORABLEJUDGEOFSAIDCOURT: COMESNOWDAVIDCARY,Defendantherein,bydthroughcounsel,and respectfullymovesthisHonorableCourttoquashtheindictmentintheabovecaptioned cause,andinsupportthereofrespectfullyshowsthisHonorableCourtthefollowing:

1.

OnOctober14,2010.theStateobtaineditsseven-countindictmentinthiscause. TheindictmentpurportstochargeEngazinzinOrvanizedCrimialActivityinCountI, andBriberyineachofCountsIIthroughVII.TothatindictmenttheDefendanthas II.pleaded"notguilty." Anindictmentmustallege,inplainandintelligiblelangurge,allthefactsand circumstancesnecessarytoestablishallthematerialelementsofItheoffensecharged.

Bynunv.State,

767S.W.2d769,779(Tex.Cr.App.1989);

Zweigv.State,

171S.W.747, 753(Tex.Cr.App.1914).Anindictmentmustalsoconveysufficientnoticetoallowthe accusedtopreparehisdefense.

Statev.Mays,

967S.W.2d404,106(Tex.Cr.App.1998). Additionally,anindictmentmustallegeonitsfacefactsnecessarytobarasubsequent

'7...

4':';'~~:i'~••.

<t

prosecuti~JtOr~1sam,~~~ii~risl

Terryv.State,

471S.W.2d84~',852(Tex.Cr.App.

i:•..:-;~-••.••.

.:i~71

,J,:.'.....

~.~r

1971).

20

1/

~pn.•

J

t

1\

i:;

1

Defendantassertsthattheindictmentfailstostateanycriminaloffense;failsto III. provideDefendantpropernoticeofwhatheisallegedtohavedoneconstitutingany criminalacts;failstoallegethefactssufficienttopermitthefoillationofadefense,and failstoallegethefactssufficienttobarsubsequentprosecutionorthesameallegedacts. Apersoncommitstheoffenseofengaginginorganized;riminalactivityif,with theintenttoestablish,maintain,orparticipateinacombinationorintheprofitsofa combination,hecommitsorconspirestocommitalistedpredictteoffense.PenalCode§ 71.02(a);see

Nguyenv.State,

1S.W.3d694,695(Tex.Cr.App.1999). AmotiontoquashshouldbegrantedonlywhentheIanuageconcerning thedefendant'sconductissovagueorindefiniteastodelilYhimeffective noticeoftheactsheallegedlycommitted.

.DeVaughn

v.

,Jtate,

749S.W.2d 62,67(Tex.Crim.App.1988).Inanorganizedcrimecase,theStateneed notallegethemannerandmeansbywhichtheunderlyingtheftwascommitted.

Crum

v.

State,

946S.W.2d349,359(Tex.Ap.-Houston[14thDist.]1997,petref'd);seealso

Zucariov.State,

658S.W·.2d835,837 (Tex.App.-Houston[1stDist.]1983,nopet.).Unlessafactisessentialto notice,theindictmentneednotpleadtheevidencerelieduponbythe State.

Livingston

v.

State,

739S.W.2d311,321(Tex.Critn.App.1987).An indictmentthattracksthelanguageofthestatuteislegaWysufficientand theStateneednotallegefactsthataremerelyevidentiinnature.Id. Heretheindictmenttrackedthelanguageofsection71.0~;therefore,the trialcourtdidnoterrinrefusingtoquashtheindictments.

Jarnigan

v.State,

57S.W.3d76,92(Tex.App.-Houston[14th]2001). Subjecttorareexceptions,anindictmentwhichtracksth~languageofthepenal statutewillbelegallysufficientandtheStateneednotallegefactsthataremerely evidentiaryinnature.

Morenov.State,

721S.W.2d295(Tex.C.App.1986);

Beckv. State,

682S.W.2d550(Tex.Cr.App.1985).Theindictmentwillbereadasawholein 2

determiningwhetheritsufficientlychargesanoffense.

Dennisv.State,

647S.W.2d275,Amotiontoquashshouldbegrantedwherethelanguag~concerningthe 279(Tex.Cr.App.1983);

Churchv.State,

552S.W.2d138,14(Tex.Cr.App.1977). defendant'sconductissovagueorindefiniteastodenythedefendanteffectivenoticeof theactsheallegedlycommitted.

Thomasv.State,

621S.W.2d158,163(Tex.Cr.App.

1981);Lindsayv.State,

588S.W.2d570(Tex.Cr.App.1979);

Cruisev.State,587

S.W.2d403(Tex.Cr.App.1979);

Haeckerv.State,

571S.W.2d920(Tex.Cr.App.1978);

Amayav.State,

551S.W.2d385(Tex.Cr.App.1977).Inthefareoftimelymotionto quashanindictment,theindictmentmustallegeonitsfacethefactsnecessarytoshowthattheoffensewascommitted,tobarasubsequentprosecutionforthesameoffense,andtogivethedefendantnoticeofpreciselywhatheischargedwit.

AmericanPlantFood v.State,

508S.W.2d598,603(Tex.Cr.App.1974),citing,

Ter

I

v.State,

471S.W.2d848,852(Tex.Cr.App.1971).Wheretheaccusedhasraisedtheclaimofinadequate noticebymeansofatimelymotiontoquash,theCourtofCriminalAppealshasheld: Thegeneralruleisthatamotiontoquashwillbeallowedifthefacts soughtareessentialtogivenotice.However,unlessafatisessential,the indictmentneednotpleadevidencereliedonbytheState.

Smith

v.

State,

502S.W.2d133(Tex.Cr.App.1973);

Cameron

v.

State,

~01S.W.2d809 (Tex.Cr.App.1966).Moreover,whenatermisdefmedinthestatutes,it neednotbefurtherallegedintheindictment.

American.lantFoodCorporation

v.

State,

508S.W.2d598(Tex.Cr.App.197l);

Mayv.State,

618S.W.2d333(Tex.Cr.App.1981).'

Thomasv.State,

supraat161(OpiniononState'sMotionforRehearing).

Ifanindictmentcontainsallegationsregardingallthene1essaryelementsofthe

offense,sothatitisnotfundamentallydefectiveandvoid,andifadefendantrequests additionalfactualinformationuponwhichtoprepareadefense,adefectofformhasbeen raisedandtheStatemayproperlyamendtheindictmenttoreflecttherequested 3