Title: Anselmo v. State

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

312 So. 2d 712 (1975) Emlle ANSELMO v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 48421. Supreme Court of Mississippi. May 5, 1975. *713 Kelly McKoin, Biloxi, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Vera Madel Speakes, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before RODGERS, INZER and WALKER, JJ. RODGERS, Presiding Justice: The appellant, Emile Anselmo, was indicted, tried and convicted of selling marijuana by the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi. He has appealed to this Court and now contends that the trial court should have granted a directed verdict in favor of the appellant because he was not indicted by the grand jury, and that the testimony offered by the state was insufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction against the appellant. *714 The testimony offered by the state tends to show that the appellant sold two "lids" (ounces) of marijuana to an undercover agent of the City of Biloxi, Mississippi. Two agents were present at the time of the sale. The appellant offered an alibi in defense of the charge. We think the evidence is sufficient to show that the sale was made as testified to by the agents, and that the jury's verdict is not against the great weight of the testimony. This case is not unusual insofar as the evidence of the commission of crime is concerned. We would not ordinarily write an opinion in a case of this nature, but in view of an exceptionally unique issue raised by the briefs in the instant case, we feel that the law should be clarified in the following particular. The indictment in this case on the usual form charges: The argument of the appellant is predicated upon the proposition that the appellant's surname was not added to the indictment during the trial, although the two police agents had identified the defendant as being the person who made the sale of marijuana to James Jordan. The appellant made a motion for a directed verdict at the time when the state rested its case in chief. This motion, however, did not point out any defect in the indictment. It merely requested that the court set aside the testimony offered by the state and direct a verdict for the defendant. No demurrer was filed to the indictment, and no motion for a directed verdict was made at the end of the case; nor did the appellant request a written instruction directing the jury to find the defendant not guilty. We have often held that a motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the state's case in chief is waived if the defendant elects to go forward with testimony for the defense. See, e.g., Fields v. State, 293 So. 2d 430 (Miss. 1974); Ross v. State, 234 Miss. 309, 106 So. 2d 56 (1958). Moreover, the defendant did not expressly set forth specific grounds for a directed verdict, and the trial court did not have an opportunity to pass upon the contention that the defendant was not charged with a crime in the indictment since his full name was not set out in the indictment. Therefore, this contention is not available to him on appeal to this Court. See Norman v. State, 302 So. 2d 254 (Miss. 1974); Stringer v. State, 279 So. 2d 156 (Miss. 1973). See also Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-143 (1972). We are told by the text writer in 41 Am.Jur.2d Indictments and Informations § 134, at 965 (1968), that as a general rule, where the names of the persons necessary to be named in an indictment are unknown, they can be designated as "Unknown to the grand jury" in the indictment. See also 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 127 f, at 1018 (1944). The grand jury has the authority to present an indictment against one whose name is unknown or who is known by many names, the correct name of the defendant being to the grand jury unknown. Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-7-25 (1972) is in the following language: One may not be acquitted for a crime he has committed upon the ground that the grand jury did not know his full name where (as in this case) it is shown in the evidence that he is the man who in fact committed the crime at the time and place shown in the indictment. Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-11-35 (1972) is in the following language: There is, however, a much more specific rule applicable to the contention of the defendant that the name or names alleged in the indictment are not his name. This rule is admirably expressed in 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 306, at 1337 (1944), as follows: Where the defendant contends that he is not the person named in the indictment, he must so plead prior to arraignment. Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-7-19 (1972) is in the following language: Moreover, when the true name of the person alleged to have committed the crime is unknown to the grand jury and during the trial his true name is revealed by the proof, the trial court may enter an order amending the indictment. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-7-19 (1972). If the indictment fails to name any person, its validity may be tested by demurrer before the jury is impaneled. Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-7-21 (1972) is as follows: In the case of Lee v. State, 138 Miss. 474, 103 So. 233 (1925), this Court pointed out that where there is a variance between the name alleged in the indictment and the true name of the defendant as shown by the testimony, the trial court could amend the indictment at any time during the trial. The court also held that the failure to amend was not a reversible error. *716 In the instant case we hold that since the appellant failed to plead that his name was not shown in the indictment before pleading not guilty, he waived his right to claim that he was not the person named in the indictment. We also hold that the trial court was not required to amend the indictment on its own motion. The verdict and judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. GILLESPIE, C.J., and PATTERSON, SMITH, ROBERTSON, SUGG and BROOM, JJ., concur.