Trevioun Lamont Cornelius Briggs v. State of Mississippi, 226 So. 3d 59

Briggs was arrested after a mall robbery; recorded jail calls showed him asking others to fabricate an alibi.
Indicted for robbery and witness-tampering under Miss. Code § 97-9-115; jury convicted on both counts.
The witness-tampering count's indictment used the word "may" ("person he believed may be called as a witness").
The jury instruction used the phrase "would or could be called as a witness."
Briggs argued the substitution of "may" (in the indictment) and the jury wording altered the statute's mens rea/elemental requirements, rendering the indictment defective.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the indictment was defective and affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Briggs' Argument	State's/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether the indictment was defective for substituting "may" for the statutory word "will" in § 97-9-115	"May" is permissive and different from "will"; the substitution failed to allege an essential element and thus deprived Briggs of constitutionally adequate notice	The substitution was inconsequential/grammatical; the indictment adequately tracked the statute's scope and facts showed Briggs believed the contacted person would be called as a witness	Majority: Not defective — "may" was inconsequential here and did not alter the statute's substantive meaning; conviction affirmed. Dissent: Defective — the words differ, indictment failed to allege an essential element; conviction should be reversed.
Whether § 97-9-115 requires an official proceeding to be pending (or the potential for one) at the time of the attempt	Briggs suggested the statute contemplates a person "will" be called in an official proceeding (arguing for strict reading)	The statute covers attempts to induce false testimony aimed at any "official proceeding," including potential future proceedings; no requirement that a proceeding be pending	Court: No requirement that an official proceeding be pending; subsection (a) reaches attempted inducements directed at potential future proceedings

State v. Crider, 487 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio Ct. App.) (defining "witness" to include one with personal knowledge)
Oregon v. Bailey, 213 P.3d 1240 (Or. 2009) (construing similar statute to reach attempts directed at potential future proceedings)
Ivey v. State, 821 So.2d 937 (Ala. 2001) (no requirement that false testimony actually be carried out for tampering conviction)
Barnette v. Alabama, 855 So.2d 1129 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (affirming bribery/witness-influence conviction though no official proceeding had begun)
Gilmer v. State, 955 So.2d 829 (Miss. 2007) (indictment must track statute or use equivalent words)
Warren v. State, 187 So.3d 616 (Miss. 2016) (indictment should track statutory language)
Thomas v. State, 126 So.3d 877 (Miss. 2013) (indictment omitting essential elements is void)