Ortega v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Arceneaux v. State

    803 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 46 times
    Reversing and acquitting because of an obverse instruction requiring the jury to find that the exhibit introduced in evidence by the State was cocaine when no such exhibit had been introduced because the cocaine had been used up during chemical testing

    In Ortega, supra, the Court of Appeals had relied upon the theory that the failure of proof was harmless because the offending allegations were mere "surplusage." Ortega v. State, 653 S.W.2d 825 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1982), citing as authority Love v. State, 627 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no petition). Although predicated in slightly different terms, the appeals court below used a similar argument to find that the instruction at issue, because it did not concern an "element" of the offense, was mere "surplusage."

  2. Ortega v. State

    668 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)   Cited 72 times
    In Ortega, supra, the Court of Appeals had relied upon the theory that the failure of proof was harmless because the offending allegations were mere "surplusage."

    CLINTON, Judge. Before us on appellant's petition for discretionary review is his conviction for credit card abuse, affirmed by the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals 653 S.W.2d 825 in an opinion to be published. On direct appeal, appellant asserted the trial court had erred by overruling his written motion to quash the indictment; that motion alleged in part that the charging instrument failed "to distinguish what he is alleged to have fraudulently obtained."