*1 required versal is likewise in this case.1 DAVIS, Before TOM G. McCORMICK judgment The is reversed and the is cause TEAGUE, JJ. and remanded.
OPINION TEAGUE, Judge.
Appellant plea guilty entered a of not before a to offense of jury the murder. V.T.C.A., Code, Penal 19.02. He was con- § jury punishment victed and the assessed at MIMS, Appellant, imprisonment Department in the Texas of Stuart Corrections for life. v. unnecessary It is to discuss the conten- Texas, Appellee. The STATE of presented Appellant’s tions in brief because No. 62257. unassigned we have found error which we justice will the interest which review in of Texas, Appeals Court of Criminal of Appellant’s requires the reversal of convic- Panel No. 3. 40.09, 13, tion. See Article V.A.C.C.P. § 18, March 1981. alleges Appel- that the The indictment unlawfully, lant: “. .. did then and there intentionally, knowingly and kill William by shooting him with a Monroe Bedford firearm, gun, to-wit: a ...” facts, law to trial applying In the the the charged jury as follows: court the challenge sufficiency accomplice 1. The brief a raises to the witness was an witness. Further accomplice ground of the evidence to corroborate the discussion of that of error is not neces- jury charged sary. witness. The was not on the issue and the evidence did not show that the *2 934
“Now, you if from the find and believe doubt that beyond evidence a reasonable WILLIAMS, Appellant, Larry 1978, day June, on the of in or about 17th Texas, County, the Defendant Cameron v. intentionally did or know- Stuart Mims Texas, Appellee. The of STATE the of William Monroe ingly cause death firearm, by shooting Bedford him with a No. 65970. gun, there intend to-wit a or did then and Texas, Appeals of Court of Criminal bodily injury to to the said cause serious Panel 3.No. Monroe Bedford and with said William injury to to commit an intent cause such 18, March 1981. life, clearly dangerous act human to to firearm, alleged shooting which as in a indictment, you
the will then find the guilty [Emphasis murder.”
Defendant of
added].
We have that such a previously held
charge which on the offense of murder au- upon theory the a not
thorizes conviction
alleged in fundamentally the indictment is State, Young
defective.
v.
(Tex.Cr.App.1980). v. See also Cumbie
State, (Tex.Cr.App.1979) 578 732 S.W.2d
and cases therein cited. the judgment is
The reversed and the cause
remanded.
McCORMICK, Judge, concurring. any legal
I of that am unaware doctrine to this Court
has attracted more attention
than that of “Fundamental Error.” The merely rendered follows the
decision here finally established as the rule of
principles State, v. 576 S.W.2d
this Court in Gooden (Judge concur- (Tex.Cr.App.1979) Dally,
382
ring). marked the demise of the Gooden 36.14, V.A.C.C.P.,
requirements of Article
relating objections charge. to to the court’s to be longer
No would harm have shown —it though presumed, be even there was
would objection
no at trial. State, v.
Being convinced that Gooden its supra, predecessors, progeny its and Evans, (Court-ap- Joe Scott Groveton decided, compelled I wrongly were feel to pointed), appellant. for perform one last urge a disinterment and Price, E. Atty. and Travis L. Dist. Joe time, recog- At same I post-mortem. the Groveton, Jr., Kitchens, Atty., Dist. Asst. appellate and nize need in our trial the Austin, Huttash, Atty., for Robert State’s consistency in system uniformity for and the State. this Court.
Therefore, I concur in the result reached McCORMICK, DAVIS, Before TOM G. reviewing why all here without the reasons TEAGUE, JJ. be and the rule should otherwise.