David Len Moulton v. State, 360 S.W.3d 540

Rebecca Moulton died in a pond; Moulton was convicted of murder and given a 60-year sentence.
Trial evidence showed uncorroborated, disputed timelines and conflicting accounts of Rebecca’s death and the post-death handling.
Initial autopsy listed death as undetermined but noted it was suspicious for homicide; an amended autopsy later changed to homicide based on affidavits.
Indictment charged three theories: manual strangulation, drowning, or unknown asphyxiation; the jury charge allowed a finding of guilt if any theory was proven, with no unanimity required on the theory.
Defense objected that the jury charge permitted an illegal “manner and means unknown” theory not supported by evidence and violated notice/consistency requirements.
Texas appellate court reversed the conviction, holding the “unknown” theory submission was erroneous and harmful, remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the indictment and jury charge properly addressed the unknown manner and means	Moulton argues the unknown means theory was not supported and allowed improper variance	State contends the indictment and charge were proper under relevant precedents	Erroneous and harmful; charge reversed and remanded
Whether the record shows harm from the erroneous jury charge	Moulton claims Almanza standard shows harm; unknown theory could have affected verdict	State contends evidence did not show reversible harm	Some harm found; reversal warranted under Almanza
Whether admission of Rule 705 affidavits was permissible	Affidavits were inadmissible under Rule 705 balancing and violated confrontation	Trial court properly balanced interest in experts’ foundations	No abuse of discretion; admission upheld
Whether Moulton waived Brady complaint by not seeking continuance	Brady claims waived due to failure to request continuance	Waiver applies; continuance requested would have preserved error	Brady complaint waived by lack of continuance
Whether the indictment’s three-paragraph structure permitted multiple theories	Disjunctive/unknown theory creates potential duplicative charges	Permissible to plead alternate methods of same offense; no improper duplicity	Indictment proper under Article 21.24; not duplicitous

Lawrence v. State, 240 S.W.3d 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (de novo review of denial of motion to quash; notice sufficiency matters)
Edmond v. State, 933 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (indictment sufficiency standards; tracking statute language acceptable)
Hicks v. State, 860 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (Hicks rule; abandoned in favor of Malik framework for unknowns)
Rosales v. State, 4 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (reaffirms repositioning of unknowns beyond Hicks; Malik guidance)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (adopts hypothetically correct charge approach; unknownness not required for sufficiency)