Opinion
NUMBER 13-14-00316-CR
04-18-2017
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant, v. MARY ZUNIGA, Appellee.
On appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Longoria
Order Per Curiam
On July 16, 2015, this Court issued a memorandum opinion reversing and remanding the trial court's order quashing count one, tampering with physical evidence, of the State's indictment. See State v. Zuniga, No. 13-14-00316-CR, 2015 WL 4381064, at *3 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi July 16, 2015), rev'd and rem'd, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2017 WL 1040766, at *5 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2017). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with our determination "that the specific identity of the tampered-with evidence is not an element of the offense," but reversed this Court's judgment and remanded the case to allow us "to address whether the statutory language is completely descriptive of the proscribed conduct such that it provided adequate notice." Zuniga, 2017 WL at *2.
The wording of the issue on remand varied throughout the opinion, as illustrated by the following descriptions of the issue:
1. "[W]hether the statutory language is completely descriptive of the proscribed conduct such that it provided adequate notice";State v. Zuniga, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___, 2017 WL 1040766, at *1-2, 4-5 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2017).
2. "Did the [i]ndictment [p]rovide [a]dequate [n]otice?";
3. "[W]hether the terms of the statute are sufficiently descriptive of the charged offense";
4. "The court of appeals did not conduct an analysis of whether the terms of the statute were sufficiently descriptive of the charged offense. Or, if it did, it did not explain how it came to that conclusion beyond simply stating that the specific identity of the tampered with evidence was not an element of the offense.";
5. "[W]hether the language contained in the indictment was of such indeterminate and variable meaning that it failed to provide [Zuniga] with adequate notice of what criminal acts she was accused of committing";
6. "[W]e remand the case to afford the court of appeals the opportunity to consider Zuniga's challenge that the indictment failed to provide her with adequate notice to prepare her defense."; and
7. "[W]hether the trial court could have properly determined that more specificity was required in the indictment in order to provide [Zuniga] with adequate notice of the charged conduct."
In light of the briefs and the court of criminal appeal's opinion, this Court requests amended briefing, which shall be limited solely to the issue designated by the court of criminal appeals on remand. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7 ("A brief may be amended or supplemented whenever justice requires, on whatever terms the court may prescribe."). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the amended brief of appellant the State of Texas be filed within thirty days from the date of this order and appellee Zuniga's amended brief, if any, be filed within thirty days after the State's amended is filed.
Further, Zuniga's unopposed motion for reconsideration of oral argument, filed on April 7, 2017, is carried with the case pending the receipt of the parties' amended briefs and further order of this Court.
PER CURIAM Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 18th day of April, 2017.