Catching v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1DissentMcDONALD, Judge
I dissent in this case because I think that the trial court erred in failing to sustain the appellant’s motion to quash the indictment. The indictment contained only one count, and the only attempt to allege the means used in the alleged offense was to recite "“an instrument calculated to produce abortion.” The evidence reflects that a rubber tube with a piece of gauze at the end was described and identified by the complaining witness as being used with other material. The state did not allege that the means used were unknown to the grand jury. It is stated in 1 Tex.Jur.2d 171, Sec. 15, that:
“…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Martinez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1939
- Roark v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1925
- Reum v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1905
- Cave v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1894
- Mayberry v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1954
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.