Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Motion To Quash Trial Prep topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge denies motion to quash indictment in aggravated-assault case; trial set for next week
Summary
In cause 230782, the judge denied the defense's motion to quash parts of the indictment that allege recklessness in an aggravated-assault charge and kept jury selection on next week's trial calendar.
A Jefferson County judge denied a defense motion to quash the reckless-conduct language in an aggravated-assault indictment and confirmed the case will proceed to trial next week with jury selection.
The motion was filed by the defense, which argued the indictment’s reckless-allegation lacked the statutory specificity required to inform the defense what acts the state intends to prove were reckless. The defense cited case law requiring the state to plead the “acts and circumstances” relied on to constitute recklessness.
Mister Gertz, defense counsel, urged the court to require the state to plead more specifically or to strike the reckless theory. The prosecutor, Mister Hoffpower, told the court the indictment tracks the aggravated-assault statute and routinely pleads intentional, knowing and reckless alternatives. The judge reviewed Article 21.15 language cited by defense and concluded the indictment sufficiently alleges the operative act — the defendant’s shaking with his hands — as the basis for intentional, knowing or reckless theories. The judge said he was “going to deny the motion to quash.”
The judge directed counsel to raise any further pretrial issues promptly; the defense said it might renew the challenge depending on evidence presented at trial. The court confirmed the case will be the first jury-selection matter on the calendar next Monday afternoon.
That ruling means the state will be permitted to present evidence at trial under any of the three culpable mental-state alternatives (intentional, knowing, reckless) alleged in the indictment, and the defense will preserve its objection for trial if it believes the evidence does not support a reckless theory.
