Is ''Not Naming the Victim'' Grounds for Quashing An Indictment ?
In Burks v. State, 876 S.W.2d 877, 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), the defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment because the State did not allege the name of the victim of the underlying robbery aggravating the murder to capital murder. Id.
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to quash and, on appeal, the defendant argued he was prejudiced because he was denied adequate notice of the charges against him and denied the right to claim double jeopardy in a subsequent prosecution. Id.
The Burks' court found the indictment was not susceptible to any interpretation that the victim of the underlying robbery was a person other than the named victim of the murder. Id.
Thus, the defendant's ability to prepare his defense was not adversely impacted. Id.
The Burks' court also concluded the defendant's potential claim of double jeopardy was not ripe, and such a claim would not arise unless he was prosecuted for the act again. Id.