State v. John Chad Kolander, 09-16-00294-CR

In May 2016 a Jefferson County grand jury indicted John Chad Kolander for tampering with physical evidence and tampering with a governmental record based on a probable-cause affidavit (a search-warrant affidavit) Kolander prepared and signed. The affidavit was attached to both indictments as an exhibit.
Josh Schaffer was appointed Criminal District Attorney Pro Tem in July 2015 and later (April 2016) given expanded authority to investigate potential aggravated perjury and related matters; Schaffer presented the matters to the grand jury. Kolander challenged Schaffer’s authority in pretrial habeas filings.
Kolander moved to quash the indictments, arguing they were impermissibly vague because they did not identify what specific statement or omission in the affidavit was false; he also challenged Schaffer’s appointment.
The trial court denied habeas relief and refused to dismiss Schaffer, but granted Kolander’s motions to quash the indictments for failing to specify the particular falsity the State relied upon, while giving the State ten days leave to amend.
The State appealed and requested findings of fact and conclusions of law; the trial court denied the request. The State did not amend the indictments but instead appealed the quash orders.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the indictments were defective for failing to identify the specific false statement in the affidavit and that the trial court did not err in refusing to issue written findings and conclusions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Kolander)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law after granting motions to quash	Trial court should have specified which ground supported dismissal; without findings appellate review is uncertain	Trial court not required to state reasons; dismissal of indictment need not be accompanied by findings	Court: No error; trial court need not make findings; context made likely basis clear
Whether indictments were legally sufficient or should be quashed for vagueness (failure to identify the specific false statement)	Indictments tracked statutory language and attached the affidavit; State not required to plead evidentiary detail—omission theory sufficed	Indictments must identify the precise false statement or omission alleged so defendant can prepare a defense	Court: Indictments deficient as they failed to identify the specific false statement/omission; quash affirmed

State v. Sandoval, 842 S.W.2d 782 (trial court not required to specify reasons for dismissal but good practice to do so)
Sovey v. State, 628 S.W.2d 163 (addressing trial court rulings on motions to dismiss indictments)
State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599 (indictment sufficiency reviewed de novo; notice requirement explained)
State v. Mays, 967 S.W.2d 404 (tracking statutory language generally satisfies indictment requirements; facts that are merely evidentiary need not be alleged)
DeVaughn v. State, 749 S.W.2d 62 (motions to quash should be granted only when language is so vague as to deny effective notice)
Amaya v. State, 551 S.W.2d 385 (indictment defective for failing to identify specific false statement)
State v. Borden, 787 S.W.2d 109 (pretrial motion to quash is proper vehicle to raise defects in form)
Cook v. State, 824 S.W.2d 334 (to give adequate notice under §37.10, the charging instrument should identify the false entry or precise falsity alleged)