Case Title: Toliver v. State

Citation: 337 So. 2d 1274

Docket Number: 49295

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1976-10-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
337 So. 2d 1274 (1976) Wendell TOLIVER v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 49295. Supreme Court of Mississippi. October 12, 1976. Edward Blackmon, Jr., Canton, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before GILLESPIE, C.J., ROBERTSON and LEE, JJ., and J.O. SAMS, Sr., Commissioner. J.O. SAMS, Sr., Commissioner, for the Court:[1] This is an appeal of Wendell Toliver, Appellant, from his conviction of the crime of assault upon an officer, at the October, 1975, Term of the Circuit Court of Holmes County, Mississippi. The appellant assigns two errors, the first of which is as follows: The pertinent part of the indictment reads as follows: The court overruled the demurrer but allowed an amendment by deleting the words, "of recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." The appellant was, therefore, tried on an amended indictment, the pertinent parts of which read as follows: This assignment of error presents the question as to whether or not the indictment charged the defendant with both simple assault under Paragraph 1 and aggravated assault under Paragraph 2 of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-7 (Supp. 1975). This section reads as follows: In order to determine whether or not there were two offenses charged, it is necessary to analyze the two parts of the quoted section. This reveals that under sub-section (1), a person is guilty of simple assault if he: (a) Attempts to or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or (b) Negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon or other means likely to produce death or serious bodily harm; or (c) Attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily harm. It will be noted that: (a) requires bodily injury or an attempt to cause it. Nothing in the indictment charges this. (b) requires negligently caused bodily injury with a deadly weapon. None was charged. (c) requires an attempt by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily harm. This is charged and this is the only offense charged in the indictment. On the other hand, sub-section (2) provides, a person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: (a) Attempts or causes serious bodily injury. There is no charge of an attempt or the causing of bodily injury; or, (b) Attempts to cause or causes bodily injury with a deadly weapon. There is no such charge in the indictment. The only charge of the indictment is an offense under sub-section 1(c). Unfortunately, it does contain a part of sub-section 2(a), but that part of sub-section 2(a) included is not sufficient to charge any offense under said sub-section 2(a), and the words deleted by the trial court were mere surplusage. Therefore, only one offense was charged by the indictment, and the trial court correctly eliminated the surplus language. It is the opinion of the Court that the indictment did not charge two offenses; that it was not duplicitous, and the action of the trial court in overruling the demurrer was correct. The second assignment of error is as follows: At the beginning of the consideration of this assignment of error, one of the basic principles of law to be considered is set forth in the case of Roberson v. State, 257 So. 2d 505 (Miss. 1972), citing with approval Redwine v. State, 149 Miss. 741, 115 So. 889 (1928), wherein it is stated: The evidence of the State clearly established that the appellant was guilty of the offense charged in the indictment. The evidence of appellant denied it. It was a clear issue of fact for decision by the jury. The jury decided against the appellant and found him guilty. The case is affirmed. AFFIRMED. GILLESPIE, C.J., PATTERSON and INZER, P. JJ., and SMITH, ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur. [1] pursuant to Chapter 430, Laws of 1976. The above opinion is adopted as the opinion of the Court.