Thus, the information failed to allege one element of the offense of evading arrest. The failure of a charging instrument to allege an element of an offense is a substance defect.... Clearly then, the information in this cause suffered from a defect of substance by failing to allege appellant knew the complainant was a peace officer who was attempting to arrest him. But the information in this cause was, ‘on its face,’ an information. Thus, the information was not ‘fundamentally defective’, and it did invest the trial court with jurisdiction. We find, therefore, that appellant has waived this defect under Art. 1.14(b) because of his failure to object to this defect ‘before the date on which the trial on the merits commenced.’ "); Ex parte Gibson, 800 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Crim. App.1990) (<HOLDING>). 35 . 902 S.W.2d 471 (Tex.Crim.App.1995). 36 .
holding an indictment legally insufficient when it failed to inform the defendant of the gravamen of the alleged offense holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect recognizing that article 2810c provides that indictment or information may not be amended over defendants objection as to form or substance if indictment or information charges defendant with additional or different offense or if substantial rights of defendant are prejudiced holding that defects errors and irregularities of either form or substance in an indictment or information must be raised by pretrial objection or are waived in postconviction proceedings indictment that failed to allege year of alleged offense contained a substantive defect but because defendant failed to object to this defect pretrial he could not raise it in a postconviction proceeding holding that failure to allege facts tolling the statute of limitations did not make indictment fundamentally defective or deprive trial court of jurisdiction defendants failure to object to this defect before trial waived error on appeal