## Facts

- Norman James Coleman was indicted in Dallas County, Texas for felony theft of four men’s suits valued at $200 or more but less than $10,000.
- The indictment alleged Coleman “did unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally appropriate” the suits without the owner’s effective consent and with intent to deprive.
- Texas law defined “appropriate” in two alternative ways: (1) bringing about a transfer or purported transfer of title or other nonpossessory interest, or (2) acquiring or otherwise exercising control over property.
- Coleman filed a pretrial motion to quash, arguing the indictment failed to provide adequate notice because it did not specify which statutory type of “appropriation” the State intended to prove.
- The trial court denied the motion; a jury convicted Coleman, and he received a life sentence based on habitual-offender enhancement.
- The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the indictment should have been quashed.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review.

## Issues

1. Whether a theft indictment that alleges the defendant “appropriated” property, without specifying the statutory manner of appropriation, provides sufficient notice when timely challenged by a motion to quash.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment reversing the conviction.
- The court held that, when timely challenged, the term “appropriate” must be particularized because its statutory definition includes more than one type of conduct.
- The trial court erred by denying the motion to quash.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment must provide the accused sufficient notice of the alleged criminal conduct to permit preparation of a defense.
- When a statutory term used in an indictment describes the defendant’s act or omission and the statute defines that term to include multiple distinct manners or means of commission, the State must specify the particular manner or means if the defendant timely moves to quash.
- In Texas theft pleadings, alleging “appropriation” without stating whether the State relies on (1) transfer (or purported transfer) of title/nonpossessory interest or (2) acquisition/exercise of control is insufficient when challenged pretrial.

## Conclusion

Because “appropriate” in Texas theft law encompasses distinct methods of commission, a theft indictment that uses only the statutory term fails to give adequate notice if it does not identify the alleged manner of appropriation after a timely motion to quash; the conviction was therefore reversed.


Coleman v. State, 643 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)