*1 GARCIA, Appellant, Richard
Discretionary Review Granted 25, 1987.
Feb. Shank, Floresville, appel-
Gary for W. lant. Floresville, Berger, Atty.,
Howard C. Co. appellee. CADENA, C.J., and REEVES Before DIAL, JJ.
OPINION REEVES, Justice. appeal a conviction for
This is an from Appellant was driving intoxicated. while jury trial, punishment guilty in a found jail days assessed court at raises Appellant fine of $500.00. and a of error.1 points three complains Garcia’s permit court that the trial failed attorney po- to fully cross-examine defense concerning Martinez the swear- lice officer ing to the as a witness Officer Daniel called he was On cross-examination the State. surrounding asked about signing swearing to the the officer’s originally opinion points part Justice as its own. Dial's first two of error were 1. The adopts majority Justice Dial. The written *2 656 objected The State on the basis intoxication not an of- testimony
that the any was not relevant to penal fense under the civil or laws of the jury issue before and that execution of Texas. complaint legal question the was a argued: He also to the After a addressed court. conference The information to fails the hearing
in of the court’s chambers out the by the which Defend- jury, judge of the the sustained the State’s ant became intoxicated not objection. ing precise notice to Defendant of the
Validity sufficiency and of the in to order bar subse- complaint questions are and information of judge. Testimony
law for the trial con brief, In his appellant drops the cerning the of the execution argument first keeps but the second. We complaint of the no would have relevance agree the argument. second The in to any jury. factual issue before the TEX. charges appellant formation drove “a (Ver CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 36.13 intoxicated, motor vehicle ... while when Supp.1985). judge non The in correct did defendant not have normal use excluding testimony jury. such from the physical of his mental faculties.” It point error is overruled. fails to inform Garcia whether the intoxi alcohol, point The second of error by is that cation a was caused controlled substance, drug, any is void it was conviction because based a or combination complaint upon properly a which not thereof. TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. -1(a)(2)(A). sworn. All motions to aside an set infor 6701Z was timely motion writing. mation be in No appellant must motion to filed. The has a constitutional set aside the on this right adequate information basis is the charges to notice of in brought point forward the record. The against right upon him. This is invoked not preserved of error has been a filing quash review. of motion to that calls to State, 768, (Tex. Nichols 653 769 v. S.W.2d the court’s attention the insufficient notice. State, 443, (Tex. Crim.App.1981). 447 Castillo 689 S.W.2d State, Crim.App.1984); Adams v. 707 point The third concerns the (Tex.Crim.App.1986). 903 S.W.2d grant appellant’s court’s refusal to motion the information. Garcia contends of error is sustained. Garcia’s third judgment information did not the manner The of the trial court is reversed by and means which the he became and dismissed. intoxi-.
cated. Justice, DIAL, dissenting. motion, argued:
In his Garcia first respectfully I dissent. in The information is defective that it set forth does not the manner means quash, In motion the de- his written intoxication. TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. alleged as fendant follows: -1(a)(2) 6701Z defines ‘intoxi- ANN. art. cated’ as: I. having not the normal use of charged by Defendant information physical or mental faculties reason Berger, County Howard executed C. alcohol, a of the introduction of con- Texas. Attorney County, of Wilson substance, drug, a or a combi- trolled of two or of those
nation more sub- II. or body; stances into the (B) having an alcohol concentration that it The information defective of 0.10 or more. does forth the manner and means not set ann. does set forth either of intoxication. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. The information -1(a)(2) ‘intoxicated’ art. 6701Z defines or as the manner means of ‘(A) having tion voiced at trial. It is not fair to a trial the normal use of mental “shotgun” objec physical faeulites reason of faced with a be [sic] alcohol, surgeon’s ap a controlled knife on the introduction tion below and the substance, drug, a or a combination of peal. No error is shown. Graham or more of those into the (Tex.Crim.App. two substances body; having 1977). an alcohol concentra- *3 or more.’ The information
tion of 0.10 I would affirm the conviction. (A) does not set forth either as the there- manner and means of intoxication charging
by not an offense under the
penal or civil laws of Texas.
III. adequately
The information does not fairly inform the Defendant of the sought or offenses offense WIPFF, Appellant, John against him. IV.
The information fails to which the Defend- ant became intoxicated
ing precise notice to Defendant of charged in order to bar subse- objection
An voiced in the trial court sufficiently specific apprise
should be of the nature of the
Hackbarth
(Tex.Crim.App.1981). If objection specificity, presents nothing
without it
review. Id. only specific complaint in motion language, was the “The informa-
tion does not set forth either
the manner and means of intoxication an offense under the
penal or civil laws of Texas.”
In his brief filed this under Court ground
the third of error the defendant only 6701Í
cites subsection of article
-1(a)(2). argues, He “In the information case,
filed in this the manner or means of forth, i.e.,
intoxication is not set the infor- com-
mation fails to the substance or alleged
bination thereof caused the appellant.”
intoxication of alleged simply not the same error
This ground A error in an the trial court. comport objec
appellate brief must