State of Texas v. Rosseau, Robert Louis, 396 S.W.3d 550

Rosseau challenged a trial court order that quashed 29 bigamy-based enhancement paragraphs in sexual-assault indictments.
Texas Penal Code §22.011(f) elevates a sexual-assault count from a second- to first-degree felony if the victim is a person the actor is prohibited from marrying under §25.01.
The indictment alleged the bigamy enhancement for each sexual-assault count; the trial court struck those paragraphs.
The State appealed, and the court of appeals held it had jurisdiction to review the quashed portions as “portions of the indictment.”
This Court held Article 44.01(a)(1) permits the State’s appeal of a trial court’s dismissal of a portion of an indictment, including enhancement paragraphs.
On the facial-challenge issue, the Court held §22.011(f) is not facially unconstitutional because it has at least one valid application.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court of appeals have jurisdiction to review the State's appeal?	Rosseau argued no jurisdiction since only an enhancement, not an element, was dismissed.	State contends Article 44.01(a)(1) allows appeal of any dismissal of an indictment portion.	Yes; jurisdiction exists.
Is Texas Penal Code §22.011(f) facially unconstitutional under equal protection/due process?	Rosseau contends the statute punishes married persons and is unconstitutional on its face.	State argues the statute has a facially valid purpose and only applies in limited circumstances.	Not facially unconstitutional; has at least one valid application.
Did Rosseau properly preserve a facial challenge in the pretrial motion to quash?	Rosseau claimed the motion to quash presented a facial challenge.	State argues the challenge was not properly framed as facial.	The challenge was adequately presented.

State v. Richardson, 383 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (art. 44.01(a)(1) permits review of dismissal of indictment portions)
State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (facial challenge requires showing unconstitutionality in all applications)
Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (presumption of validity; burden on challenger)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial challenges require showing no valid circumstances)
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (equal protection surrounding classifications)
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) (rational basis review applied to non-fundamental rights)
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (government interest need not be perfect to sustain law)
Lawrence v. State, 240 S.W.3d 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (pretrial- motion limitations on reviewing sufficiency)