We granted the following ground for review: "Whether the appellant had sufficient notice of the theory of culpability by which the State would seek conviction for delivery of a controlled substance?" As the Court of Appeals remarked, the heart of appellant's complaint is "that he did not receive adequate notice to prepare his defense because the State did not allege in the indictment that it would prove actual delivery by the law of parties." ⁽¹⁾ But it is well-settled that the law of parties need not be pled in the indictment. ⁽²⁾ We have so held in a drug delivery case with circumstances materially identical to the case at bar. ⁽³⁾

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

KELLER, Presiding Judge

Date Delivered: September 18, 2002

Publish

1. Marable v. State, 990 S.W.2d 421, 424 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1999).

2. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Jackson v. State, 898 S.W.2d 896, 898 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Fisher v. State, 887 S.W.2d 49, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Swope v. State, 805 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Montoya v. State, 810 S.W.2d 160, 165 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 961 (1991). Crank v. State, 761 S.W.2d 328, 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874 (1989); Pitts v. State, 569 S.W.2d 898, 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

3. Tate v. State, 811 S.W.2d 607, 607, 607 n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)(sale of methamphetamine between the defendant, an undercover police officer, and the officer's informant; noting that the Court of Appeals correctly held, "it is well settled that if the evidence supports a charge on the law of parties, the court may charge on the law of parties even though there is no such allegation in the indictment").