dissenting.
I cannot agree with the majority that one of the elements of the offense of attempted capital murder which must be alleged in an indictment is “that the defendant does an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended.” Granted, it is a matter which must be proved, but it is not an “element of offense” within the definition of the penal code and, therefore, is not necessary to the indictment.
V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 1.07(a)(13), provides:
“(13). ‘Element of offense’ means:
“(A) the forbidden conduct;
“(B) the required culpability;
“(C) any required result; and
“(D) the negation of any exception to the offense.”
V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 1.07(a)(8), provides:
“(8) ‘Conduct’ means an act or omission and its accompanying mental state.”
Finally, an “attempt” is “an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of *731the offense intended.” (Emphasis added). V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 15.01(a). In charging an attempt crime, the “attempt” is the forbidden conduct. The language “an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended” is the definition of attempt, and not the “element of offense” contemplated by Section 1.07(a)(13), supra.
The general rule is that, when a term is defined in the statutes, it need not be further alleged in the indictment. American Plant Food Corporation v. State, 508 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); May v. State, 618 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). Although the indictment in the case at bar may have been subject to a motion to quash, it sufficiently informed appellant of the offense with which he was charged. A collateral attack on the grounds now asserted should not be allowed.
.For these reasons, I must dissent.