State of Mississippi v. Hattie Hawkins, 145 So. 3d 636

Hattie M. Hawkins, a certified nursing assistant at Heritage House, was indicted for simple assault of a "vulnerable person" after a resident, Deserie S. Edwards, fell from a lift/sling and suffered serious injuries when Hawkins allegedly lifted and left the resident unattended.
The indictment tracked § 97-3-7(1) and alleged Hawkins "willfully, negligently, and feloniously" inflicted injury, describing the factual basis (improper single-person lift, leaving victim unattended, failing to seek/notify staff).
Hawkins moved to demur days before trial, arguing the indictment failed to conform to the statutory mens rea language ("purposely, knowingly, or recklessly" vs. the indictment's wording) and was legally deficient; the circuit court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case.
The State appealed; the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed de novo whether the indictment was legally sufficient under URCCC 7.06 and Mississippi caselaw.
The Court held the indictment satisfied Rule 7.06, provided fair notice of the charge and essential facts, and that imperfect or mixed mens rea language (including surplus terms like "willfully" or an erroneous statutory citation) did not render it defective.
The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hawkins)	Held
Sufficiency of indictment under URCCC 7.06	Indictment tracked § 97-3-7(1), recited essential facts, and provided adequate notice	Indictment did not conform to statutory mens rea language and thus failed to state a cause of action	Indictment was sufficient under Rule 7.06; it gave fair notice and allowed preparation of a defense
Mens rea wording ("willfully, negligently, feloniously")	The conduct fits subsection (ii) (negligent causation by other means likely to produce serious harm); terms are understandable in context	Using "willfully" and "feloniously" conflicts with statute and creates ambiguity about the charged mental state	Mixed or inartful mens rea terms can be surplusage; indictment is salvageable if conduct and charge are clear
Requirement to specify statutory subsection	Not required so long as essential elements appear and defendant has notice	Argued that failure to specify subsection renders charge defective	Subsections of § 97-3-7(1) are not mutually exclusive; specific subsection need not be identified when indictment gives adequate notice
Effect of incorrect or surplus language (e.g., "feloniously")	Such words are surplusage and do not prejudice defendant	Surplus or incorrect words render indictment defective	Surplusage or incorrect statutory phrasing does not automatically invalidate indictment if no prejudice to defense

Tapper v. State, 47 So.3d 95 (Miss. 2010) (indictment defect reviewed de novo)
King v. State, 580 So.2d 1182 (Miss. 1991) (statutory language in indictment generally sufficient but exact wording not always required)
Harbin v. State, 478 So.2d 796 (Miss. 1985) (indictment legally sufficient if fair notice given by reading as a whole)
Stevens v. State, 808 So.2d 908 (Miss. 2002) (subsections of assault statutes not mutually exclusive; charging under multiple subsections acceptable)
Reining v. State, 606 So.2d 1098 (Miss. 1992) (use of "feloniously" in assault indictment is not fatal)
Jones v. State, 856 So.2d 285 (Miss. 2003) (ultimate test is whether defendant was prejudiced in preparing defense)