Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

632 S.W.2d 800

Crawford v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 25, 1982

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1982-03-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“aggravated” would nevertheless be superfluous. Under § 21.03(a)(1), supra, a rape may be aggravated where the defendant "causes serious bodily injury or attempts to cause death to the victim or another in the course of the same criminal episode[.]” A defendant who, in the course of committing an otherwise simple rape against one victim, intentionally causes the death of "another,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Muniz v. State

“where the Court reversed a conviction for capital murder because the indictment was 'susceptible of an interpretation that the victim of the alleged kidnapping was a person other than the named deceased.'”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wood, Cynthia Kaye

Relies on Brasfield v. State · King v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-03-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 2018

4 state decisions

201982199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MORSE, Justice,

¶1concurring.

¶2Since the indictment charged appellant with “intentionally and knowingly causing the death of Theresa Louise Pierce by choking and strangling her with his hands and arms ... in the course of committing and attempting to commit rape,” it does not appear that any scenario could be read out of the indictment involving a passerby or other than that serious bodily injury (to the victim, as already alleged) was caused in the course of the same criminal episode (as the rape of “the victim, or another” — as constitutes aggravated rape under Tex.Penal Code Ann. Sec. 21.03(a)(1)). However, since we are compelled by the holdings in King v. State, 594 S.W.2d 425 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) and Brasfield v. State, 600 S.W.2d 288 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), to reverse and remand this case for reversible error in overruling the motion to quash the indictment, because it was susceptible of an interpretation that the [unnamed] victim of the alleged [aggravated] rape was a person other than the named deceased, there is no need to decide whether the error was fundamental. Based on Kingand Brasfield, I concur in the necessary reversal without holding there was fundamental error in the indictment or charge.

/632/sw2d/800 · .json · Public domain