Stewart v. State
Decision Date | 21 September 1990 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 34 |
Citation | 580 So.2d 27 |
Parties | Johnny STEWART v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Johnny Stewart, pro se.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Margaret S. Childers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Johnny Stewart, was convicted, after a jury trial, for trafficking in cocaine, in violation § 20-2-80(2), Code of Alabama 1975, and was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, fined $25,000, and ordered to pay $250 restitution. Because of our disposition of this case, we deem it unnecessary to recite the facts.
Appellant contends that the indictment, under which he was tried and convicted, does not aver all the elements of the crime of trafficking in cocaine and, for that reason, does not charge a crime that would have conferred jurisdiction upon the trial court. The indictment reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
"The Grand Jury of said County charge that before finding this indictment on to-wit: Johnny Stewart whose name is otherwise unknown to the Grand Jury other than as stated, did possess, sell or deliver in excess of 28 grams of a controlled substance, to-wit: Cocaine in violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act, a violation of § 20-2-80 of the Code of Alabama...."
Appellant contends that § 20-2-80(2) 1 makes knowledge an element of the offense by requiring that a defendant "knowingly" sell, manufacture, deliver, or bring into this state, or "knowingly" be in actual or constructive possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine or of any mixture containing cocaine, and that the instant indictment fails to allege this element. He argues that the failure to allege this essential element renders the indictment void and unable to support a judgment of conviction.
The state argues, in brief, that appellant's issue is not preserved, because he did not object to the indictment during trial on the ground now urged on appeal and, also, the motion he did file was untimely. An appellant usually waives irregularities in an indictment by appearing and pleading in the trial court, because his plea to the merits is held an admission that the indictment is valid. Canada v. State, 421 So.2d 140, 145 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). However, "[t]he only exception to this is when an indictment fails to include an essential element of the offense which leaves the accused unaware of the nature and cause of the charge against him." Id., at 145. "This Court is bound to take notice of defects in an indictment which render it void, even in the absence of an objection." Felder v. State, 512 So.2d 817, 818 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Barbee v. State, 417 So.2d 611, 612 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). See also A.R.Cr.P.Temp. 16.2(a) and (d) (which provide that the failure of the charge to state an offense may be raised at any time).
We find that this case fits the exception to the preservation rule that is urged by the state, for we find that the omission of the allegation of knowledge in the instant indictment is the type of defect that renders the indictment void. Alabama courts have expressly recognized that knowledge is an essential element to the conviction for an offense involving possession of a controlled substance. See, e.g., Walker v. State, 356 So.2d 672 (Ala.1977) (possession); Donahoo v. State, 505 So.2d 1067, 1070 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (trafficking). Because it is an essential element, knowledge should have been alleged in the indictment. See 28 C.J.S. Drugs and Narcotics Supplement § 184(a) (1974) ( ). Compare Thompson v. State, 454 So.2d 1053, 1055-56 (Ala.Cr.App.1984) ( ). See also 28 C.J.S. supra, at § 184 ( ).
We also find guidance for our holding in Davis v. State, 68 Ala. 58 (1880), wherein the court reviewed the validity of an indictment charging the statutory offense of transporting or moving seed cotton at night. The statute prescribed that anyone "who knowingly violates any of the provisions" of the act shall be guilty. In addressing the validity of the indictment on its failure to aver that the appellant did the act charged "knowingly," the court stated the following:
Id. at 65. See also Barbee v. State (cited with approval in City of Dothan v. Holloway, 501 So.2d 1136, 1165, n. 6 (Ala.1986) ( ); Johnson v. State, 555 So.2d 215 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, on other ground, 555 So.2d 216 (Ala.1989).
The state contends that the element of knowledge can be read into the indictment because the indictment cites the statute, alleging that appellant acted "in violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act, a violation of § 20-2-80 of the Code of Alabama,...." In Barbee v. State, 417 So.2d at 613-14, this court rejected similar reasoning and reiterated the rule for construing an indictment, stating, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hunt v. State
...for a "harmless error" review of a defective charging instrument. "The Court of Criminal Appeals correctly held, in Stewart [v. State, 580 So.2d 27 (Ala.Cr.App.1990) ], that if a statute requires that the offense be 'knowingly' committed, then the indictment should allege that it was so com......
-
Hunt v. Tucker
..."when the indictment charges `unlawful' possession, then by inference it means `knowing' possession." Id. at 243. In Stewart v. Alabama, 580 So.2d 27 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), the court, faced with the same defective indictment situation as in Morrison, criticized its own Morrison We decline to ......
-
People v. Frieberg
... Page 508 ... 589 N.E.2d 508 ... 147 Ill.2d 326, 168 Ill.Dec. 108 ... The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, ... Todd L. FRIEBERG, Appellant ... No. 71319 ... Supreme Court of Illinois ... March 12, 1992 ... Page 511 ... possession of, * * * 28 grams or more of cocaine * * * is guilty of * * * 'trafficking in cocaine.' " (Ala.Code § 13A-12-231 (1990); see Stewart v. State (Ala.1990), 580 So.2d 27 (indictment under section 13A-12-231 requires allegation of a culpable mental state, "knowingly").) We note that ... ...
-
Ex parte Harper
...time, because the indictment would have failed to state a charge upon which a conviction could be based. In fact, in Stewart v. State, 580 So.2d 27 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), cert. quashed, 580 So.2d 27 (Ala.1991), the Court of Criminal Appeals, citing the Walker principle, held that the indictme......