State v. ROFFLER, 69 So. 3d 225

Rofflers operated Gulf Coast Furniture and offered layaway purchases with payments in cash, checks, multiple-party checks, credit/debit cards, or other electronic forms.
In 2006 Mobile padlocked the store for unpaid city sales taxes; several layaway accounts remained active and some customers could not be located.
November 2006 Mobile County grand jury issued 23-count indictments against Mitchell and 23-count indictments against Michelle for theft, each count alleging a monetary amount owed to a specific owner.
Indictments stated the property as a monetary amount but did not specify the medium of exchange (cash, check, debit/credit transactions, etc.).
Trial court dismissed the indictments with prejudice, citing Shubert v. State to require the medium of exchange; Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal in unpublished memorandum.
The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that in the 21st century the medium of exchange is immaterial to the validity of theft indictments when the monetary amount is stated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is an indictment for theft of a monetary amount sufficient without the medium of exchange?	State: sufficient as to notice and elements.	Rofflers: insufficient; lacks medium of exchange.	Indictments are legally sufficient without medium of exchange.
Is the medium of exchange still material to value in theft indictments in the 21st century?	State: medium is immaterial; all forms share same value.	Rofflers: medium matters to value and notice.	Medium of exchange is immaterial; monetary amount governs.
Do the indictments provide adequate notice and avoid double jeopardy without specifying medium?	State: adequate notice; protects against double jeopardy.	Rofflers: insufficient notice without medium.	Indictments provide adequate notice and protect against double jeopardy.
Can a fatal variance between indictment and State’s proof be determined pre-trial?	State: variance issue cannot be decided before trial.	Rofflers: variance may render indictment defective.	Fatal variance cannot be decided until after trial evidence is presented.

Shubert v. State, 488 So.2d 44 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (medium of exchange required for precise description of property in theft)
Ex parte Harper, 594 So.2d 1181 (Ala.1991) (indictment must apprize accused with reasonable certainty of nature of accusation)
State v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 845 (Ala.1844) (denomination and number of coin required in early theft indictments)
Delevie v. State, 686 So.2d 1283 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (fatal variance between currency type and evidence cited in defense)
Ex parte Airhart, 477 So.2d 979 (Ala.1985) (precedent on indictment sufficiency and form)
Harrison v. State, 13 So.3d 45 (Ala. Crim.App.2009) (fatal variance considerations in indictment-evidence analysis)