## Facts

- Billy Decoux entered an elderly cobbler’s shoe-repair shop after asking to use the phone and claiming a relationship to a nearby pool-hall owner.
- After the shop owner learned the claim was false and asked Decoux to leave, Decoux demanded money, grabbed the owner, took cash from the owner’s breast pocket, and struck the owner on the head with a nearby baseball bat.
- A passerby intervened; the owner was taken to a hospital for treatment.
- Decoux was indicted for aggravated robbery alleging he used or exhibited a deadly weapon (a baseball bat) while in the course of committing theft of the complainant’s property; the indictment named the complainant but did not describe the specific property taken.

## Issues

1. Whether an aggravated-robbery indictment is legally sufficient when it alleges theft of “the property of” a named complainant but does not specify the kind, character, or amount of the property taken.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the aggravated-robbery conviction and 50-year sentence.
- The court upheld denial of Decoux’s motion to quash the indictment.
- The court held the indictment’s generic allegation of theft of the complainant’s property was sufficient in this aggravated-robbery prosecution.

## Legal Principles

- An aggravated-robbery indictment is generally sufficient if it tracks the statutory elements, identifies the complainant, and alleges the aggravating element (such as use or exhibition of a deadly weapon) while the defendant was in the course of committing theft.
- In robbery-type offenses, alleging theft of a named complainant’s “property” can provide adequate notice even without a detailed description of the property, where the indictment otherwise identifies the incident and elements charged.
- A defect claim based on lack of detail turns on whether the charging instrument gives fair notice and whether the omission causes prejudice to the defendant’s ability to prepare a defense or to plead former jeopardy.

## Conclusion

The court held that an aggravated-robbery indictment alleging theft of the named complainant’s property, together with the statutory assaultive and deadly-weapon allegations, provided sufficient notice and was not required to specify the stolen property with greater particularity.


Decoux v. State, No. 01-88-00292-CR, 1989 WL 38358 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 20, 1989)