Skip to main content

Grant v. State

Citations

  • 970 S.W.2d 22
  • 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 79
  • 1998 WL 331285

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that “officer” as stated in the charging instrument was clearly the officer’s title rather than his first name, the 5 omission of the officer’s first name from the charging instrument was not a variance, and appellant waived the defect by failing to object at trial
  • noting there was no variance because the alleged variance was not an element of the crime the State was required to prove
  • missing first name of complainant not variance but instead reflects a defective information to which defendant must object prior to trial pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.14(b) to preserve issue for review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Overstreet

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.