State v. Bingen, 13637

Decision Date10 November 1982
Docket NumberNo. 13637,13637
Citation326 N.W.2d 99
PartiesSTATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Charles M. BINGEN, Defendant and Appellee.
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

Jeffrey P. Hallem, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellant; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, Arthur L. Rusch, Clay County State's Atty., Vermillion, on the brief.

Edwin E. Evans of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellee.

WOLLMAN, Justice.

The State appeals from an order dismissing a count of an indictment which charges defendant with false reporting to authorities (SDCL 22-11-9). * That count of the indictment states:

That on or about the 22nd day of May, 1981, in the County of Clay and State of South Dakota, Charles M. Bingen did commit the public offense of False Reporting to Authorities contrary to SDCL 22-11-9, in that he did then and there and unlawfully make a report to law enforcement authorities, namely, Vermillion Police Officer Dennis Nelson, which furnished information relating to an offense, namely, to the offense of grand theft of a trailer, which information was to the effect that he had purchased said trailer from Dave Heinrich for twenty dollars ($20) when he knew that such information was false ...

The trial court concluded from the testimony presented at a suppression hearing that the evidence did not support the indictment inasmuch as the information furnished by defendant to the police did not constitute a false report within the meaning of SDCL 22-11-9(3). We conclude that the trial court erred in addressing this issue.

The grounds for dismissing an indictment are set forth in SDCL 23A-8-2. The indictment in question does not appear vulnerable under any of the grounds contained in the statute.

To be sufficient an indictment must (1) contain the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform the defendant of the charge against him, and (2) enable him to plead an acquittal of conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense. United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 100 S.Ct. 624, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980); Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962). An indictment is generally sufficient if it employs the language of the statute or its equivalent. See State v. Lange, 82 S.D. 666, 152 N.W.2d 635 (1967) (sufficiency of information). The indictment in this case employs the equivalent of the language of SDCL 22-11-9...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Reutter
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • September 6, 1985
    ...to events occurring in Minnehaha County during the period from late October or early November 1982 to January 9, 1983. In State v. Bingen, 326 N.W.2d 99, 100 (S.D.1982), we To be sufficient an indictment must (1) contain the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform the defendant of......
  • State v. Logue
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 31, 1985
    ...for the same offense. An indictment is generally sufficient if it employs the language of the statute or its equivalent. State v. Bingen, 326 N.W.2d 99 (S.D.1982); State v. Lange, 82 S.D. 666, 152 N.W.2d 635 (1967). A review of the indictment establishes that these requirements were satisfi......
  • State v. Cameron
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1999
    ...reversible. Springer-Ertl, 1997 SD 128, ¶ 8, 570 N.W.2d at 41; State v. Dorhout, 513 N.W.2d 390, 392 (S.D.1994) (citing State v. Bingen, 326 N.W.2d 99, 100 (S.D.1982)). Consequently, the order is subject to reversal for this reason alone. Springer-Ertl, 1997 SD 128, ¶ 8, 570 N.W.2d at [¶ 11......
  • State v. Dorhout, 18249
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • April 15, 1994
    ...853 (S.D.1989). These statutory grounds are exclusive, State v. Hoekstra, 286 N.W.2d 127, 128 (S.D.1979); see generally State v. Bingen, 326 N.W.2d 99, 100 (S.D.1982) (grounds for dismissing an indictment are set forth in SDCL 23A-8-2), and "the trial court cannot inquire into the legality ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT