Skip to main content

Smith v. State

Citations

  • 309 S.W.3d 10
  • 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 16
  • 2010 WL 625048

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the requirement that the State allege “the circumstances of the act which indicate that the defendant acted in a reckless manner” was “met by the assertion that appellant ‘exposed his penis and masturbated’”
  • observing that State “need not allege facts that are merely evidentiary in nature” in charging instrument
  • explaining that appellate courts review trial court’s ruling on motion to quash indictment de novo
  • concluding court of appeals erroneously applied abuse-of-discretion standard because sufficiency of charging instrument presents question of law so appellate court reviews trial judge's ruling on motion to quash charging instrument de novo
  • finding “the information charging Smith with indecent exposure was sufficient to satisfy due-process notice requirements”
  • information did not satisfy requirements of article 21.15 but was “sufficient to satisfy due -process notice requirements”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Keasler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by 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.