State v. Timothy Wayne Smith, 09-16-00297-CR

In July 2015 Jefferson County DA Bob Wortham moved to appoint a Criminal District Attorney Pro Tem (Josh Schaffer) to investigate alleged tampering by officers arising from a May 2013 incident; Judge John Stevens appointed Schaffer.
Schaffer sought and obtained an expanded grand-jury investigation in April 2016 to include allegations against Timothy Wayne Smith; grand jury returned indictments (May 11, 2016) charging Smith with tampering with physical evidence and tampering with a governmental record based on a probable-cause affidavit attached as Exhibit A.
Exhibit A was a search-warrant affidavit prepared with investigator Kolander as affiant; Smith — employed as Chief Investigator for the DA’s office — acted as typist/assistant in preparing the affidavit.
Smith moved to quash and filed pretrial habeas claims challenging Judge Stevens’s authority to appoint Schaffer and Schaffer’s authority to act; the trial court denied habeas relief but granted Smith’s motions to quash the indictments, permitting the State ten days to amend.
The trial court refused the State’s request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; the State instead appealed the quash orders (arguing both that findings were required and that the indictments were legally sufficient because they tracked statutory language and attached the affidavit).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law	Trial court should have identified which ground supported dismissal so appellate review is possible	No requirement to make written findings; court’s oral statement indicated the basis (vagueness/inadequate specificity)	No error — trial court not required to make findings on motion to quash; appellate court could reasonably infer basis
Whether indictments were legally sufficient (gave adequate notice)	Indictments track statutory language and attach the affidavit; State need not plead evidentiary detail about what part was false; omissions can be evidentiary	Indictments failed to identify the specific false statement or omission alleged; defect in form; pretrial quash proper; State must amend to specify the falsity	Held for Smith — indictments insufficient because they did not identify the specific false statement or material omission; quash affirmed

State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (standard for reviewing indictment sufficiency de novo and notice requirement)
State v. Mays, 967 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (tracking statutory language generally satisfies charging requirements; evidentiary facts not required)
DeVaughn v. State, 749 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (motion to quash required only when language is so vague it denies effective notice)
Amaya v. State, 551 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (indictment defective where it failed to identify the specific false statement alleged)
Cook v. State, 824 S.W.2d 334 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (to afford sufficient notice under section 37.10, the charging instrument should identify the false entry; State must amend when form defect shown)
State v. Sandoval, 842 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992) (trial court that dismisses without specifying grounds forces State to challenge all theories)
Sovey v. State, 628 S.W.2d 163 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982) (same principle on stating grounds)
State v. Borden, 787 S.W.2d 109 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990) (pretrial motion to quash is proper for form defects)