Charles Chuck Robinson, Appellant v. the State of Texas, Appellee

Summary

The Court examined whether the omission of the word “imminent” from the jury instruction on the fifth element of aggravated robbery, and alleged deficiencies in the indictment, constituted a fundamental error. It held that the omission did not diminish the State’s burden of proof, deprive the appellant of notice, or authorize conviction for conduct not criminalized, and therefore affirmed the conviction. The Court also held that an aggravated robbery indictment need not allege the theft element’s mental state or the property’s owner, and that using disjunctive language in the charge is permissible.