Murk v. State
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)
1Opinion of the Court
BAKER, Justice.
In this public lewdness case, we hold that the State’s amendment of the information rendered it fundamentally defective by deleting an essential element concerning intent. We set aside the conviction and order the information dismissed.
The information originally charged that appellant:
knowingly engage[d] in an act of sexual contact with Albert Pagan, hereinafter called other person, said sexual contact being a touching of the genitals through the clothing of said other person, with the hand of said defendant, with the intent to arouse and gratify the sexual desire of said…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Thomas v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1981
- Baldwin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1976
- Aylor v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1987
- Victory v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1977
- Ex Parte ElliottCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1988
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Studer v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990
- State v. MurkCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
- Oliver v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)1990
- Dedonato v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1990
- Dedonato v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1990
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.