United States v. Simms
4:19-cr-01051
E.D. Mo.Sep 13, 2021Background
- Indictment (June 3, 2019, St. Louis): Simms charged with attempted carjacking resulting in the death of Jabari Clark (18 U.S.C. § 2119(3) and § 2) and with discharging a firearm in furtherance of that crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and § 924(j)).
- Indictment tracks statutory language and identifies date, location, vehicle, and victim by name.
- Simms moved for a bill of particulars arguing the Government failed to describe or link his conduct to an attempted taking of the vehicle; alternatively he moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction/failure to state an offense.
- Government opposed: indictment satisfies Rule 7(c) and discovery has been provided; any factual disputes are for trial.
- Magistrate Judge denied the bill of particulars and recommended denial of the motion to dismiss, holding the indictment sufficiently alleges the offenses and that challenges to evidence belong at trial (e.g., Rule 29), not in a pretrial dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for bill of particulars | Indictment satisfies Rule 7(c); discovery suffices | Govt failed to describe/establish an attempted taking; needs specifics to prepare defense | Denied — indictment states essential facts; bill of particulars not a discovery tool |
| Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction / failure to state offense | Indictment legally adequate; factual sufficiency is for trial | Indictment lacks facts proving attempted carjacking; dismissal warranted | Recommended denied — cannot test evidence sufficiency via pretrial dismissal; factual issues reserved for trial/Rule 29 |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) (indictment must allege essential facts so defendant can prepare defense)
- Wessels v. United States, 12 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 1993) (bill of particulars purpose: apprise defendant and prevent surprise)
- Lundstrom v. United States, 880 F.3d 423 (8th Cir. 2018) (bill of particulars is not a discovery device)
- Huggans v. United States, 650 F.3d 1210 (8th Cir. 2011) (indictment sufficiency standard; bills of particulars not for detailed evidence)
- Fassnacht v. United States, 332 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2003) (defendant entitled to know the offense charged, not proof details)
- Hernandez v. United States, 299 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2002) (other sources of information can eliminate need for a bill of particulars)
- Dolan v. United States, 120 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 1997) (indictment must alert defendant to government’s allegations)
- DeLaurentis v. United States, 230 F.3d 659 (3d Cir. 2000) (motion to dismiss inappropriate to challenge evidentiary sufficiency)
- Ferro v. United States, 252 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2001) (cannot dismiss indictment based on predicted insufficiency; sufficiency tested at trial via Rule 29)
- Sholley-Gonzalez v. United States, 996 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2021) (examining materials beyond indictment tests evidence, not indictment validity)