Williams v. State
169 So. 3d 932
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Williams was convicted in Copiah County Circuit Court of failing to register as a sex offender and sentenced to three years in MDOC custody.
- The indictment, returned January 30, 2013, alleged failure to register on or about September 4, 2012 in Copiah County, without detailing essential elements or factual specifics.
- At trial, two State witnesses testified; the defense presented no witnesses or evidence.
- Officer Farrell testified about Williams’s stated address and a signed acknowledgment form; no date or address on the form was proven.
- Investigator Roberts testified Williams signed an acknowledgment of duties and that visits to the provided address showed Williams was not present; a video was shown with contested authentication.
- Williams challenged the indictment as legally insufficient for failing to allege essential elements or specific facts, and the trial court did not address the sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency | Williams argues the indictment omits essential elements and facts. | State contends waiver applies but indictment sufficiency is reviewable on appeal. | Indictment legally insufficient; reversed and dismissed. |
| Plain-error instruction | Failure to instruct on essential elements prejudiced Williams. | State would argue no error or harmless error. | Court declines since indictment defeated the case; plain-error issue not reached. |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Evidence does not support any specific basis for violation of the statute. | State asserts sufficient evidence exists to sustain conviction. | Evidence insufficient or improperly focused due to defective indictment; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. State, 119 So.3d 309 (Miss.2013) (indictment sufficiency reviewed de novo)
- Thomas v. State, 126 So.3d 877 (Miss.2013) (Supreme Court disposition on indictment sufficiency)
- Gales v. State, 131 So.3d 1238 (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (indictment sufficiency precedent)
- Tucker v. State, 47 So.3d 135 (Miss.2010) (indictment sufficiency may be raised on appeal)
- Ross v. State, 954 So.2d 968 (Miss.2007) (indictment sufficiency raised on appeal)
- Havard v. State, 928 So.2d 771 (Miss.2006) (indictment sufficiency considerations)
- State v. Berryhill, 703 So.2d 250 (Miss.1997) (indictment must allege essential facts)
- Copeland v. State, 423 So.2d 1333 (Miss.1982) (standard for indictment notice)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (U.S.1969) (meaning of informing the defendant of charges (citation provided in context))