State v. John Hardy Taylor ( 2010 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-10-00016-CR
______________________________
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant
V.
JOHN HARDY TAYLOR, Appellee
On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court
Fannin County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23054
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In its indictment, the State alleged that, on or about August 13, 2008, John Hardy Taylor
was the owner of a dog he knew to be dangerous. It is further alleged that, on the date in question,
Taylor’s dangerous dog, while not restrained in a secure enclosure, made an unprovoked attack on
Haiden Lynn McCurry, causing serious bodily injury—a violation of Section 822.005(a)(2) of the
Texas Health and Safety Code.1 The trial court dismissed the indictment against Taylor with
prejudice on the grounds that Section 822.005(a)(2) of the Texas Health and Safety Code is an
unconstitutionally vague, strict-liability statute. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.
§ 822.005(a)(2) (Vernon 2010). The State appeals from the order quashing the indictment in trial
court cause number 23054.
The State also appeals from the order quashing the indictment in trial court cause number
23053, and has filed a single brief, in which the State raises issues common to both appeals. The
State contends the statute in question is not an unconstitutionally vague, strict-liability statute, and
the order quashing the indictment should therefore be reversed. We addressed these issues in
detail in our opinion of this date in cause number 06-10-00015-CR. For the reasons stated
therein, we likewise conclude that the statute is constitutional, but nevertheless affirm and modify
1
Because this is an appeal of a pretrial order, no testimony or evidence appears in the record.
2
the order2 quashing the indictment because it fails to allege a culpable mental state.
As modified, the order of the trial court is affirmed.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: July 6, 2010
Date Decided: July 23, 2010
Do Not Publish
2
As explained in our opinion of this date in cause number 06-10-00015-CR, the trial court dismissed the indictment
with prejudice. Because the statute is not unconstitutional, the indictment should have been dismissed without
prejudice.
3