Tucker v. State
2010 Miss. LEXIS 573
| Miss. | 2010Background
- Tucker was convicted of possession of stolen property from a Foot Gear burglary in West Point, Mississippi.
- After conviction the trial court amended Tucker's indictment to add habitual-offender status; sentence was ten years in MDOC and a $10,000 fine.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed Tucker's conviction and sentence, holding the indictment sufficiently described the property.
- This Court granted certiorari to review whether the indictment sufficiently described the stolen property with sufficient particularity.
- The central issue is whether the indictment's description 'athletic apparel, said property having a total value in excess of $500.00' adequately informs Tucker of the charged offense.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court holds that the indictment is insufficient to describe the stolen property with the required particularity and reverses and renders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the indictment adequately describe the stolen property? | Tucker argues lack of sufficient particularity in property description. | State contends owner, item class, and value provide notice. | Indictment insufficient; reversed and rendered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nguyen v. State, 761 So.2d 873 (Miss. 2000) (insufficient particularity when description too broad)
- Armstead v. State, 503 So.2d 281 (Miss. 1987) (indictment must include seven enumerated elements)
- Brown v. State, 890 So.2d 901 (Miss. 2004) (indictment sufficiency guided by notice and description requirements)
- Daniel v. State, 212 Miss. 223, 54 So.2d 272 (1951) (illustrative sufficiency of property description cases)