A grand jury indicted appellee Kathleen McCoy for two counts of manslaughter. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. � 19.04 (West 1994). The district court dismissed the indictment on appellee’s motion and the State appeals. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2001). We will affirm the district court’s order.
Each count of the indictment alleges that McCoy “recklessly cause[d] the death of an individual, namely [named victim], to-wit: said Defendant did then and there drive a motor vehicle, in which the said [victim] was a passenger, into the waters of a flood, thereby causing the said [victim] to drown.” McCoy moved to quash the indictment on four grounds: (1) “the facts stated do not constitute an offense”; (2) the indictment “does not have the requisites required by Chapter 21 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure”; (3) the indictment “is vague, indefinite, ambiguous and uncertain and does not set forth [the alleged violation] in plain and intelligible language”; and (4) the indictment “does not meet the requirements of Article 21.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.” In addition to the statutory references, the motion cited the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution. The order granting the motion does not state the ground or grounds on which it is based, but in a letter to the parties announcing the ruling, the trial judge opined that the indictment does not “allege[] an identifiable offense against the law.”
The parties agree that the adequacy of the indictment is a question of law, and that the district court’s ruling is subject to de novo review. See State v. Hoffman, 999 S.W.2d 573, 574 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, no pet.) (whether indictment alleged offense was question of law subject to de novo review); see also Johnson v. State, 954 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (purely legal questions reviewed de novo); Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (mixed questions of law and fact not turning on credibility may be reviewed de novo). But see Thomas v. State, 621 S.W.2d 158, 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (op. on reh’g) (motion to quash on notice grounds is committed to “sound discretion” of trial court); State v. Czaplinski, 956 S.W.2d 839, 841 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, no pet.) (same); State v. Draper, 940 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, no pet.) (same).
