Skip to main content

Flowers v. State

Citations

  • 815 S.W.2d 724
  • 1991 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 181
  • 1991 WL 183126

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that for purposes of Article 28.10(c), “a different offense means a different statutory offense”
  • concluding that the trial court did not violate article 28.10(c
  • stating that “[b]ecause a statute should be interpreted to be effective,” it would not construe a statute in such a way that its language would be nullified
  • the amendment which changed ownership allegation did not charge a different offense or a different legal theory, but merely changed the evidence needed to prove the offense
  • amendment -8- of indictment to change name of owner of property that was subject of theft charge did not charge “different offense” in violation of statute; different offense meant different statutory offense
  • the Section 31.03(b)(3) definition of unlawful appropriation is not an element of the offense, but is an evidentiary matter that need not be alleged in order to sufficiently charge the offense of theft

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Clinton, Baird, Overstreet

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

76 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.