A. Indictment
A(l). Notice Is a Fundamental
Federal Constitutional Right
Is the Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the na
ture and cause of the accusation a fundamental federal
constitutional right that should be made applicable
to proceedings in state courts through the Fourteenth
Amendment?
Should lack of sufficient notice of the nature and cause
of the accusation under the Sixth Amendment be made
constitutional error requiring proof beyond a reasona
ble doubt that the lack of notice was harmless?
Should lack of sufficient notice of the nature and cause
of the accusation under the Sixth Amendment be made
structural error requiring reversal without a harmless
error analysis?
A(2). More Precise Notice
Are obscenity, harassment, and/or stalking cases
classes of cases where more specific pleading should
be required than merely repeating the language of the
statute? Should the precise comments alleged to be
obscene, harassing, or threatening be set-out on the
face of the indictment?

A(3). Variances Between
Indictment and Trial
Is the Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury indictment
in felony cases a fundamental federal constitutional
right that should be made applicable to proceedings in
state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Should a material variance between the allegations in
the indictment and the proof at trial be made constitu
tional error for lack of notice requiring proof beyond a
reasonable doubt that the variance was harmless?
A(4). Indictment Insufficient in This Case
Did the indictment provide sufficient notice of the na
ture and cause of the accusation in order to prepare a
defense?
Should the State have been required to provide more
precise notice in response to the Motion to Quash No
ble filed? Should the State have been required to pro
vide notice they were relying on the solicitation
provision of the obscenity provision of the harassment
statute? (42.07(a)(1), 42.07(b)(3)) Should the State have
been required to provide more precise notice of the com
ments alleged to be obscene, harassing or threatening?
Was there a fatal variance between the allegations in
the indictment and the evidence at trial? Is evidence
pertaining to events not properly plead in the indict
ment inadmissible at trial? Should the admission of
such variance evidence be reviewed on appeal under
TRAP 44.2(b) as a variance affecting the substantial
rights of the defendant?

B. Constitutionality of
Texas Harassment and Stalking Statutes
B(l). Stalking, 42.072
Is the Texas Stalking Statute, Penal Code § 42.072, un
constitutional, in whole or in part? Is § 42.072 uncon
stitutionally overbroad or vague, either on its face or
as applied to Noble? Do any provisions of the Texas
Harassment Statute, Penal Code § 42.07, render the
§42.072 unconstitutional?
Did the 2013 Amendment to § 42.072 which added an
offense under § 42.07 as an element of § 42.072(a)(1)
render § 42.072 unconstitutional by allowing essen
tially the same behavior to be prosecuted as either

Is the Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation a fundamental federal constitutional right that should be made applicable to proceedings in state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment?