PD-0099-23 05/31/2023
“The Court of Appeals Erred to Find That the State Was Required to Provide Appellant with Specific Notice as to Which Manner and Means the State Would Seek to Prove.”
The aggravated promotion of prostitution indictment alleged that Williams knowingly (1) owns, invests in, finances, controls, supervises, or manages (2) a prostitution enterprise (3) that uses two or more prostitutes. Williams moved to quash, claiming that the indictment failed to provide notice of which of the six manners and means he was charged with. The trial court denied the request.
The court of appeals held that the trial court erred because there were multiple manners or means of commission; the statutory language was not “completely descriptive.” Considering harm, the court then determined that Williams did not have actual notice of the theory the State sought to prove; therefore, he lacked sufficient notice to prepare his defense. The court dismissed the indictment.
The State argues that it was not required to elect a manner and means to proceed because jury unanimity regarding alternate manners and means is not required. The indictment provided sufficient notice.
