State v. Pruitt, No. 16730
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 178 W.Va. 147,358 S.E.2d 231 |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia v. David PRUITT. |
| Docket Number | No. 16730 |
| Decision Date | 03 June 1987 |
Page 231
v.
David PRUITT.
West Virginia.
Page 232
[178 W.Va. 148] Syllabus by the Court
1. "When an allegation is descriptive of the identity of that which is essential to the charge in the indictment, whether it be necessary or unnecessary or more or less particular, it cannot be rejected as surplusage and must be proved." Syllabus Point 2, State v. McGraw, 140 W.Va. 547, 85 S.E.2d 849 (1955).
2. "A valid indictment or presentment can be made only by a grand jury; and no court can make an indictment in the first instance or alter or amend the substance of an indictment returned by a grand jury." Syllabus Point 5, State v. McGraw, 140 W.Va. 547, 85 S.E.2d 849 (1955).
Mary Beth Kershner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Travers R. Harrington, Jr., Fayetteville, for appellee.
PER CURIAM:
David Pruitt was convicted in the Circuit Court of Fayette County of obtaining property in return for a worthless check in violation of W.Va. Code, 61-3-39 [1977]. The indictment in its original form alleged that Mr. Pruitt had written a check to Bandy's, Inc., in the amount of $1169.00, drawn on the Bank of Raleigh of Beckley, "when he the said David Pruitt knowingly did not have sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with the said Bank of Raleigh." The subject check was drawn on the account of Cash Sales, Inc. At the conclusion of the evidence, it became clear to the prosecution that it would be unable to prove the charge alleged in the indictment, specifically the allegation that David Pruitt individually did not have sufficient funds on deposit at the Bank of Raleigh to cover the check at the time he wrote it. Because the evidence did show that Cash Sales, Inc. did not have sufficient funds to cover the check at the time Mr. Pruitt wrote the check, the prosecutor made a motion in chambers to amend the indictment. His motion was granted by the trial judge, and as amended the indictment alleged that Mr. Pruitt had delivered the subject check to Bandy's, Inc. "when he, the said David Pruitt individually and as agent for Cash Sales, Inc., a corporation, knew that he and said corporation did not have sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with the said Bank of Raleigh."
[178 W.Va. 149] On appeal, Mr. Pruitt contends that the trial judge erred in permitting the prosecution to amend the indictment at the close of
Page 233
the evidence. We agree,...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson, No. 22954
...returned by a grand jury." Syllabus Point 5, State v. McGraw, 140 W.Va. 547, 85 S.E.2d 849 (1955).' Syllabus Point 2, State v. Pruitt, 178 W.Va. 147, 358 S.E.2d 231 (1987)." 2 However, in some situations resubmitting the indictment to the grand jury in order to make nonsubstantive changes w......
-
State v. Childers, No. 20426
...and the requisite criminal elements are outlined. See State v. Picheco, 2 Conn.Cir. 584, 203 A.2d 242 (1964). See also State v. Pruitt, 178 W.Va. 147, 358 S.E.2d 231 We implicitly recognized this general rule in Mullins v. Venable, 171 W.Va. 92, 297 S.E.2d 866 (1982), where we discussed the......
-
State v. Lane, No. 17-1066
...do not believe the facts in this case warranted imposition of the ultimate punishment available in this jurisdiction." Id . at 147, 358 S.E.2d at 231 ; see generally Kilmer , 240 W. Va. at 185, 808 S.E.2d at 868, Syl. Pt. 4 (finding that felony offense of driving while license revoked for d......
-
State ex rel. Starr v. Halbritter, No. 19649
...by a grand jury." Syl. pt. 5, State v. McGraw, 140 W.Va. 547, 85 S.E.2d 849 (1955), as modified. Accord, syl. pt. 2, State v. Pruitt, 178 W.Va. 147 , 358 S.E.2d 231 (1987). Furthermore, "a valid presentment or indictment of a grand jury is, in this [s]tate, a condition precedent to a convic......
-
State v. Johnson, No. 22954
...returned by a grand jury." Syllabus Point 5, State v. McGraw, 140 W.Va. 547, 85 S.E.2d 849 (1955).' Syllabus Point 2, State v. Pruitt, 178 W.Va. 147, 358 S.E.2d 231 (1987)." 2 However, in some situations resubmitting the indictment to the grand jury in order to make nonsubstantive changes w......
-
State v. Childers, No. 20426
...and the requisite criminal elements are outlined. See State v. Picheco, 2 Conn.Cir. 584, 203 A.2d 242 (1964). See also State v. Pruitt, 178 W.Va. 147, 358 S.E.2d 231 We implicitly recognized this general rule in Mullins v. Venable, 171 W.Va. 92, 297 S.E.2d 866 (1982), where we discussed the......
-
State v. Lane, No. 17-1066
...do not believe the facts in this case warranted imposition of the ultimate punishment available in this jurisdiction." Id . at 147, 358 S.E.2d at 231 ; see generally Kilmer , 240 W. Va. at 185, 808 S.E.2d at 868, Syl. Pt. 4 (finding that felony offense of driving while license revoked for d......
-
State ex rel. Starr v. Halbritter, No. 19649
...by a grand jury." Syl. pt. 5, State v. McGraw, 140 W.Va. 547, 85 S.E.2d 849 (1955), as modified. Accord, syl. pt. 2, State v. Pruitt, 178 W.Va. 147 , 358 S.E.2d 231 (1987). Furthermore, "a valid presentment or indictment of a grand jury is, in this [s]tate, a condition precedent to a convic......