Umphress v. State, 47950
| Decision Date | 10 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47950,47950 |
| Parties | Lawrence UMPHRESS v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Williams & Williams, Water Valley, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jacson, for appellee.
Lawrence Umphress was convicted for the delivery of amphetamine, a controlled substance, by the Circuit Court of Chickasaw County. He was sentenced to three years in the state penitentiary and fined $2000. One year and $1000 were suspended pending the appellant's good behavior. He appeals from this judgment.
Four indictments were returned against Umphress by the Grand Jury of Chickasaw County during the October 1972 term of the Circuit Court. Each charged Umphress with the unlawful delivery of amphetamine. Indictments in Cause Nos. 8415 and 8416 charged the delivery of amphetamine on December 20, 1971. The indictments in Cause Nos. 8417 and 8418 charged the delivery of amphetamine on December 30, 1971. With the exceptions of the dates all of the indictments are in identical language. The appellant was tried and convicted in Cause No. 8418. The indictment in it, omitting the formal parts, appears as follows:
. . . That LAWRENCE UMPHRESS late of the District and County aforesaid, on or about the 30th day of December, 1971, in the District and County aforesaid, did unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously, deliver a Controlled Substance, to wit: Amphetamine, contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi.
The appellant demurred to the four indictments prior to the trial in Cause No. 8418. The basis of the demurrers was that the indictments were so vague, indefinite and uncertain that they failed to inform the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusations against him in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the Mississippi Constitution (1890). Additionally, it was argued that the indictments were so vague, indefinite and uncertain in their detail that the defendant could not plead double jeopardy in a subsequent proceeding.
The demurrers were overruled and this cause proceeded to trial with the result mentioned. However, each of the indictments is presently before this Court by direction of the trial court.
The issue for determination is whether the indictment by which the appellant was convicted was sufficient to adequately inform him of the nature and cause of the accusation against him as required by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 26, Mississippi Constitution (1890).
In Kelly v. State, 204 Miss. 79, 36 So.2d 925 (1948), we held:
Section 26 of the Constitution of 1890 secures to the accused such a specific description of the nature and cause of the accusation as will enable him to make preparation for his trial, and also such identification of the offense that he may be insured against a subsequent prosecution therefor. . . . (204 Miss. at 88-89, 36 So.2d at 926)
More recently we defined the office of an indictment in Westmoreland v. State, 246 So.2d 487 (Miss.1971), by stating:
An indictment, of course, constitutes the 'pleading' in a criminal case. Its office is to apprise the defendant of the charge against him in fair and intelligeble language (1) in order that he may be able to prepare his defense, and (2) the charge must be laid with sufficient particularity of detail that it may form the basis of a plea of former jeopardy in any subsequent proceedings. . . . (246 So.2d at 489)
The indictment in the present case and those of the related causes could hardly be more indefinite. They do not specify time or place with any particularity. Neither do they designate the person to whom delivery was made. A comparison of the charges with the requirements of Kelly and Westmoreland, supr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Read v. State
...of the charge because they did not charge appellants possessed the contraband with intent to deliver it to another person. Umphress v. State, 295 So.2d 735 (Miss.1974), is distinguished from this case in that Umphress was charged with having delivered a controlled substance. The indictment ......
-
Byrom v. State, 2001-DP-00529-SCT.
...764 So.2d at 421. s 100. In Stevens v. State, 808 So.2d 908 (Miss.2002), the accused, charged with manslaughter, cited Umphress v. State, 295 So.2d 735 (Miss.1974), in support of his argument that the indictment should have been quashed because it failed to name the "others" mentioned in th......
-
Stevens v. State
...because it did not enumerate the elements of aggravated assault. Both arguments are without merit. ¶ 33. Stevens submits Umphress v. State, 295 So.2d 735 (Miss.1974), as controlling authority for his assertion that the indictment was insufficient because it did not list the names of "the ot......
-
Eakes v. State
...Miss.Code Ann. §§ 97-3-97 and 97-3-95. Eakes' double jeopardy claim is also disingenuous. Contrary to the situation in Umphress v. State, 295 So.2d 735, 736-37 (Miss.1974), where the indictment did not specify a time, place, or person to whom delivery of drugs was made, Eakes could claim do......