I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - CT - 0 0 2 1 6 - S CT J OH N ALL EN BERRY
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 30/ 2006 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. R O B E R T P
. C H A M B E R L IN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: DAV I D CLAY VAN DERBURG AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : J EFFR EY A
. K LI N G FU SS DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: J OHN W
. CH AM P I ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE J UDGMENT O F D E S O T O C O U N T Y C IR C U IT C O U R T IS RE I NS T AT E D AND A F F I RMED
. CO NV I CTI ON OF CO NSPI RA CY TO P OSS ES S P REC URS ORS AND S ENT ENCE O F T W O ( 2) Y E A R S W I T H T H R E E ( 3) YE AR S P OS T
- RE L E AS E S UP E RV I S I ON, A FFIRM E D - 12/ 11/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. EAS LEY, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. J ohn A l l en Berr y was c on vi c t e d o f CountI , c on s pi r a c y t o p os s e s s pr e c ur s or s , and C ountI I , pos s es s i on of

f i f t een gr ams ormore of

ps eudoephe dr i ne orephedr i ne, know i ng or und er c i r cumst ance s w her e one r eas onabl y s houl d know thatthe che m i cal s w oul d be us ed

### 2

t o manuf actur e a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , by a j ury i n the C i r cui tCourtof D eSot o C ou nty, M i ssi ssi pp i
. B erry w as sent enced t o serve a term o f fi ve y ears on C ou nt I I and t w o y ears , w i th thr ee ye ar s of

pos t - r el eas e s upervi s i on, on Count I , w i th the s ent ence f orCount I t o run
cons ecut i vel y t o the s ent ence f orC ountI I , i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons . B err y appea l ed hi s convi ct i on as t o C ountI onl y, and hi s appea l w as as s i gned to th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls. A d iv id e d C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re v e rse d a n d re n d e re d th e c a se a s to C o u n t I , c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s p re c u rs o rs , o n ly
. B e rr y v. S ta te , 2007 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 422 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. J une 19, 2007)
. T he C our tof A ppeal s deni ed t he S t at e’ s m ot i on f or
r ehea r i ng, and the St at e then f i l ed a pet i t i on f

orw r i tof cert i or ar i , w hi ch thi s C our tgr ant ed. FACTS ¶2. O n February 22, 2005, a W al gr eens empl oyee not i f i ed pol i ce that B erry and Lem uel W e b b h ad m ad e a n u m b er o f pu rch ase s o f co ld m ed ici n e c o n tai n ing the in g red ien ts ephedr i ne and pseudoe phedr i ne atthe Southaven, M i s s i s s i ppi , s t or e. A s the men l ef tt he
s t ore, the empl oyee not ed the l i cens e pl at e numberand gave i tt o pol i ce. T he empl oyee t es t i f i ed thatB err y had bee n i n the s t or e buyi ng the col d m edi ci ne on m ore than one
o c c a sio n . A c c o rd in g to th e e m p lo y e e , B e rry a n d W e b b w o u ld tak e tu rn s b u y in g th e c o ld
m e d ica tio n . O n e o f th e m e n w o u ld sta n d in th e c o sm e tics a isle a n d th e o th e r m a n w o u ld pur chas e col d m edi ci ne. T he pol i ce f ound B erry and W ebb s i t t i ng i n a vehi cl e i n a parki ng l otne ara Fr ed’ s s t or e. W ebb gave the pol i ce c ons entt o s ear ch the vehi cl e. W hen the pol i ce
s ear c he d the ve hi c l e , the y d i s cover ed col d m edi ci ne cont ai ni ng the i ngr edi ent s ephedr i ne and p s e u d o e p h e d ri n e .

### 3

¶ 3
. T h e re a fte r, B e rr y a n d W e b b w e re a rre ste d a n d c h a rg e d w ith c o n sp ira c y to ill e g a lly pos s es s pr ecur s or s and pos s es s i on of f i f t een gr ams orm or e of

ps eudoephe dr i ne orephedr i ne. B erry t es t i f

i ed i n hi s ow n def

ens e and deni ed ent er i ng W al gr eens thatda y. H e al s o deni ed any know l edge of

the pur chas e of

l ar ge amount s of

col d m edi ci ne. H e cl ai m ed t hathe
m e r e l y ha d dr i ve n W e bb , who h a d no d r i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e , t o pi c k up med i c a l s uppl i es f or W e b b ’ s mo th e r - i n - l a w. DI S CU S S I ON ¶4. O n appea l , B err y a r gued thathi s i ndi ctm entw as de f ect i ve beca us e C ountI di d not s et f or th a cr i m e. H e cont ended thatpos s es s i on of pr ecur s or s al one w as nota cr i m e. Si nce
cons pi r a c y r e qu i r e s tha ttw o o rmor e pe r s on s a gr e e t o c omm i ta c r i me, Berry c l a i med that there ca n b e n o crim e w h en there is no u n d erlying crim e u p o n w h ich to c o n sp ir e. F u rth er, B erry ar gued thatthe i ndi ctm entf ai l ed t o s etf

or th a l l the nece s s ary e l ement s of the cr i m e, i ncludi ng the “int ent t o u nlaw ful l y m anu facture a con trol l ed su b stance. ” B erry als o cont ended thatthe i ndi ctm entf ai l ed t o gi ve hi m not i ce of w hi ch pr ecur s or s he w as al l eged t o have pos s es s ed. ¶5
. T he C our tof A ppeal s agr eed and hel d tha tthe i nd i c t mentw a s de f e c t i ve , a s t he p o s s e s s io n o f a p re c u rs o r c h e m ic a l in a n d o f i ts e lf is n o t a c ri m e . B erry , 2 00 7 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 422, at*2 ( ¶1)
. A ddi t i onal l y, the C our tof A ppeal s hel d thatC ountI of t he ind ictm en t f

ail ed (1) to n o ti fy B erry w h ich p rec u rsors w ere at issue , (2) to c h arg e a n ec essa ry el eme nt of t he cr i m e, and ( 3) t o i dent i f y w hi ch s ubs ect i on of

M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed
w as ati s s ue f

orthe under l yi ng cr i m e, pos s es s i on of pr ecur s or s . T her ef

or e, the C our tof A pp eal s rever sed and rendered C ou nt I of the i nd i ct m ent, conspir acy t o p ossess precursor s.

### 4

Th e Co u r to f

Ap p e a l s d i s t i n g u i s h e d th i s c a s e f r o m S a n de rs o n v . S ta te , 88 3 S o. 2d 55 8 (M i ss. 2004) , t o r eac h i t s rul i ng, hol di ng: C ountI of

the i ndi ctm entchar ged B erry w i th cons pi r i ng t o pos s es s pr ecur s or chemi cal s w hi ch w er e not nam ed orotherw i s e i dent i f i ed. I tdi d notchar ge him w i th cons pi r i ng t o pos s es s thes e uni dent i f i ed pr ecur s or s w i th ei therthe i nt entt o m anuf

actur e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance orw i th know l edge, orun der ci r cumst ance s w her e he r eas onabl y shoul d have know n, thatthe pr ecur s or chemi cal s w oul d be us ed t o unl aw f ul l y m anuf

actur e a c ontr ol l ed subs t ance . Fur ther , C ountI di d notc har ge B erry w i th c ons pi r i ng t o pos s es s tw o hundr ed f i f ty ( 250) dos age uni t s orf i f t een ( 15) gr ams orm or e of ei ther p seu d o ep h ed ri n e o r ep h ed ri n e w ith k n o w ledg e, or u n d er c ir cu m stan ce s w h ere he r eas onabl y s houl d have know n, thatthe ps eudoephe dr i ne orephedr i ne w o u ld b e u s e d to u n la w fu lly m a n u fa c tu re a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e w o rd in g u se d in C o u n t I fa iled to p lac e B e rry o n n o tice a s to w hetherhe w as bei ng char ged w i th cons pi r i ng t o c om m i tthe cr i m e s peci f i ed i n ei thers ubs ect i ons ( 1) ( a) ( I ) , ( 1) ( a) ( i i ) , or( 2) ( c) ( I ) of s ect i on 41- 29- 313. T he u se o f th e p h ra se "p re c u rso r ch e m ica ls" in C o u n t I p re c lu d e s th e a p p lica b ili ty o f su b se c tio n (2 )(c )(I) s in c e th is s u b se c tio n p re c lu d e s p o ss e ss io n o f a c e rta in amount of

ei therps eudoephe dr i ne orephedr i ne, and the evi dence w as thatthe contr aband w as t w enty- f ourgr ams of

ps eudoephe dr i ne, w hi ch i s onl y one pr ecur s orchemi cal
. A s pr evi ous l y not ed, C ountI f ai l ed t o i dent i f

y the pr ecur s orchemi cal s i nvol ved, and f orr eas ons al r eady s t at ed, thi s om i s s i on wa s n o ts u p p l i e d b y r e a d i n g C o u n tI i n c o n j u n c t i o n wi th Co u n tI I
. F u r th e r , we f i nd thatC ountI of

the i ndi ctm entf

ai l s t o char ge the nec es s ary el ementunder ei therof the s ubs ect i ons di s cus s ed, l eadi ng t o the i nes capa bl e conc l us i on that i tf ai l s t o al l ege a cr i m e. T her ef or e, w e r ever s e and r enderB erry' s convi ct i on in C o u n t I b u t affi rm h is co n v ict ion in C o u n t I I. B erry , 2 0 0 7 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 4 2 2 , * 1 3 -14 (¶ 1 2 ). ¶6. T he St at e f

i l ed a pet i t i on f

orw r i tof

c ert i or ar i
. T he St at e ar gues thatthe opi ni on by the C our tof

A ppeal s m i s appr ehende d the l aw r egar di ng the cr i m e of conspir acy. Speci f i cal l y, the St at e cont ends thatthe C our tof A ppeal s mi s under s t ood how the cr i m e of

### T he St at e c onte nds that theCourt

of Appe al s incor

re ctly ref er re d to t he c harged 1 

### crim e a s c onspiring to poss es s “pr ec urs or che mi ca ls .”The Statemaint ains that Ber ry wa s charge d in theindi ctme nt wi th c onspiring to pos se ss “pr ec urs ors .”A re vie w of the indi ctme nt reve al s that

Ber ry wa s c harged wi th c onspiring to p ossess “pr ec urs ors ,”not “precursor ch emicals.” 5 cons pi r acy i s c har ged and pr oved. W e agr ee. I n a ddi t i on, the St at e ar gues thatthe C our tof A pp eal s al so m i sapprehen ded som e fact s. 1 ¶7. T he i s s ues bef

or e thi s C our tar e ( 1) w hetherC ountI of B erry’ s i ndi ctm ent , cons pi r acy to p o ss e ss p re c u rso rs, is d e fe c tiv e ; an d (2 ) w h e th e r C o u n t I o f th e in d ictm e n t ad e q u a tely
n o tif ie d B e rr y o f t h e c ri m e c h a rg e d a g a in s t h im
. I. In d ictm en t. ¶8. I n T

ra n v. S ta te , 962 So. 2d 1237, 1240 ( M i s s . 2007) , thi s C ou rt st at ed t hat “[ o] ur
r evi ew of

the l egal s uf

f i ci ency of

an i ndi ctm enti s an i s s ue of l aw , and ther ef

or e i s r evi ew ed de novo. ” T

r an , 9 62 So
. 2 d a t1 24 0. Furthe r , i n G ilm e r v . S ta te , 955 So. 2d 829, 836- 837 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ), th is C o u rt sta ted : A n i ndi ctm entm us tcont ai n ( 1) the es s ent i al el ement s of the of f ens e cha r ged, ( 2) s uf f i ci entf act s t o f ai r l y i nf or m the def

endantof

the char ge agai ns tw hi ch he m us tde f

end, a nd ( 3) s uf

f i ci entf act s t o enabl e hi m t o pl ead doubl e j eopar dy i n the eve ntof

a f utur e pr os ecut i on f

orthe s ame of

f ens e. G ilm e rv . S ta te , 955 So. 2d 829, 836- 837 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. I n H avar d v. S ta te , thi s C our ts t at ed an i ndi ctm enti s s uf f i ci entpr ovi ded i tcont ai ns the f ol l ow i ng: T h e ind ictm en t i s h eld to b e su ffi cien t i f i t con tai n s the sev en fac tors enumer at ed i n U R C C C 7. 06. 1. T he name of

the ac cus ed; 2 . T h e d a te o n w h ich th e in d ictm e n t w a s file d in c o u rt;

### 6 3. A st a t e menttha tthe pr os e c ut i on i s br ou gh ti n the na me a nd b y th e a u th o rity o f th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i; 4 . T h e c o u n ty a n d ju d icia l d istric t in w h ich th e in d ictm e n t is b ro u g h t; 5. T he dat e and, i f

a ppl i cabl e, the t i m e atw hi ch the of f ens e w as a lleg e d to h a v e b e e n c o m m itt e d . F a ilu re to sta te th e c o rre c t d a te sh a ll n o t re n d e r th e in d ictm e n t in su ffic ien t; 6. T he si gnatur e of

the f or eman of

the gr and j ury i s s ui ng i t ; and 7 . T h e w o rd s " a g a in s t th e p e a c e a n d d ig n ity o f t h e s ta te ." H a v a rdv. S ta te , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 7 7 1 , 8 0 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶9. C ountI of

the i ndi ctm entc har ged B erry w i th c ons pi r acy pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 9 7 -1-1 (a) (2 0 0 5 ). T h is st atute d efine s the c ri m e o f co n sp ir ac y to b e “ If tw o ( 2) orm or e per s ons cons pi r e ei ther : (a ) T o com m i ta cr i m e. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 1- 1 (a) (20 0 5 ). ¶10. C ountI of

the i ndi ctm ents t at ed: T hatJ O H N A L L E N B E R R Y and L E M U E L W
. W E B B , I I I , L at e of the C ounty and St at e af

or es ai d, on oraboutt he 22nd day of FE B R U A R Y , i n the yearof our Lord 2005, i n the C ounty and St at e af or es ai d, and w i thi n the ju risd ictio n o f th is C o u rt, d id w ilfu lly , u n law fu lly a n d fe lo n io u sly , co rru p tly agr ee, cons pi r e and c onf eder at e, eac h w i th the otherand di ver s other s t o the G ra n d Ju ry u n k n o w n , to c o m m it a c rim e , to- w it: P o ss e ss io n o f P re c u rso rs, in di r ectvi ol at i on of

Sect i on 97- 1- 1( a) , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode 1972 A nnotat ed, as amended, contr ary t o the f or m of the s t atute i n s uch ca s es pr ovi ded, and a g a in st th e p e a c e a n d d ig n ity o f th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i. ¶11. C ountI I of

the i ndi ctm ents t at ed: T hatJ O H N A L L E N B E R R Y and L E M U E L W
. W E B B , I I I , L at e of the C ounty and St at e af

or es ai d, on oraboutthe 22nd day of FEB R U A R Y , i n the ye a rof ou rLor d 2 00 5, i n the County a nd St a t e a f or e s a i d, a nd w i thi n the ju risd ictio n o f th is C o u rt, d id w ilfu lly , u n law fu lly a n d fe lo n io u sly , k n o w in g ly a n d i n t e n t i o n a l l y p o s s e s s , p u r c h a s e , tr a n s f e r , o rd i s tr i b u t e f

i f t e e n ( 1 5 ) g r a ms

### 7

i n w ei ghtof

pseudoe phedr i ne orephedr i ne, know i ng, or unde rci r cumst ance s w h e re o n e re a so n a b ly sh o u ld k n o w , th at th e p seu d o ep h ed ri n e o r ep h e d rin e w ill be use d t o unl aw f

ul l y m anuf

actur e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance , i n di r ectvi ol at i on o f S ec ti o n 4 1 -2 9 -3 1 3 , M iss iss ip p i C o d e 1 9 7 2 A n n o tate d , as am en d ed , co n tr ary t o the f or m of the s t atut e i n such cases pr ovi ded, and aga i ns tthe pea ce a nd d ig n ity o f th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i. ¶12. I n Sanders on , thi s C our thel d that“ the el ement s of a cons pi r acy r equi r e ‘ r ecogni t i on
o n th e p a rt o f th e c o n sp ira to rs th a t th e y a re e n ter in g in to a c o m m o n p lan a n d k n o w in g ly i nt end t o f

ur theri t s comm on purpos e. ’ ” Sanders on , 883 So. 2d at560 ( quot i ng P eoples v. S ta te , 501 So. 2d 424, 428 ( M i s s . 1987))
. “I n orde rt o pr ove a c ons pi r acy unde rM i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 7 -1 -1 , the S tate w a s re q u ire d to sh o w th a t tw o o r m o re p e rso n s a g re e d to c o m m it a
cr i m e oragr eed t o acc om pl i s h an unl aw f ul purpos e. ” Mo rg a n v. S ta te , 741 So. 2d 246, 255 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng J

o h n so n v. S ta te , 6 4 2 S o . 2 d 9 2 4 , 9 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 )). ¶13. I n Mor

gan , thi s C our tf

ur therhel d: T he St at e w as r equi r ed to prov e t hatM or gan knew thathe w as ent er i ng a c o m m o n p la n a n d in te n d e d to fu rt h e r i ts c o m m o n p u rp o s e . Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 572 So. 2d 865, 867 ( M i s s . 1990)
. T he pr os ecut i on w as notr equi r ed t o s how thatthe part i es ent er ed an expr es s orf or m al a gr eement . A cons pi r acy c an be pr oven by the ac t s and conductof the al l eged c ons pi r at or s and ca n be i nf err ed fr o m th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . J o h n so n v. S tate , 6 4 2 S o . 2 d a t 9 2 8 ; Mitchel l v. S tate , 5 7 2 S o . 2 d a t 8 6 7 ; R o se v. S ta te , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 7 2 8 , 7 3 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). F in a lly , o n c e th e e x iste n c e o f a c o n sp ira c y is s h o w n , o n ly slig h t ev id e n c e is re q u ir e d to c o n n e c t a p a rt ic u la r d e fe n d a n t w ith th e c o n s p ir a c y . U nited States v. Jam es , 5 2 8 F
. 2 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 1 2 (5th C ir
. 1 9 7 6 ). Mor gan , 741 So. 2d at256. ¶14. I n Fa r r is v . S ta te , 764 So. 2d 411, 421 ( M i s s . 2000), t hi s C our thel d t hatw her e the i ndi ctm enttr acke d the l anguage of the cons pi r acy s t atut e, M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 97- 1- 1, t he def

endantw as suf

f i ci ent l y not i f

i ed of t he char ge he w as f

aci ng, al l ow i ng th e d e fe n d a n t to p re p a re a d e fe n s e .

### 8

¶15. I n Fa rr is , 764 So. 2d at428- 29, thi s C our tf ur thers t at ed: W e hav e defi ned t he cri m e of con spi racy as f oll ow s: "C o n spi racy i s a c o m b in a tio n o f tw o o r m o re p e rso n s to a c c o m p lish a n u n law fu l p u rp o se o r to ac co m p li sh a law ful p u rpo se u n law full y , the p erso n s ag ree ing in o rde r t o form the cons pi r acy. T he of

f ens e i s compl et e w i thouts how i ng an overtacti n the fur therance o f the co nspir acy." G riffin v. S ta te , 4 80 S o. 2d 11 24 , 11 26 (M i ss. 1985)
. T he part i es t o the cons pi r acy m us tunder s t and t hat"they ar e ent er i ng i nto a com m on p l an and k no w i ng l y int end t o further i t s com m on pu rpose. " Id
. A nd f i nal l y, "the agr eementneed notbe f or m al orexpr es s , butm ay be i nf err ed f r om the ci r cumst ance s , pa r t i cul ar l y by decl ar at i ons , a ct s , a nd c onductof the al l eged con spi rat ors. " Id
. See al s o Cla y to n v. S ta te , 58 2 S o. 2d 10 19 (M i ss. 1 9 9 1 ). “So l ong as a f

ai rre adi ng of the i ndi ctm ent , t aken a s a w hol e, cl ear l y des cr i bes the natur e and
caus e of the char ge agai ns tthe acc us ed, the i ndi ctm enti s l egal l y s uf f i ci ent . ” Fa rr is , 764 So. 2 d a t 4 2 1 ; see al

so Sanders on , 883 So. 2d at561. ¶1 6
. In B erry ’s ca se, the ind ictm e n t m et the sev en req u ir em en ts o f M issi ssipp i U n if o rm C irc u it an d C o u n ty C o u rt R u le 7 .0 6 a s se t fo rth in H ava rd
. See H

ava rd , 928 So. 2d at801; M i s s . U ni f

. C i r . & C t y. R
. 7. 06. Fur ther , thi s C our ti n T hom as v. State hel d t hat

“ Co n s p i r a c y i s a c o mp l e t e o f f e n s e i n i t s e l f

, d i s t i n c tf

r o m th e c o mmi s s i o n o f th e c r i me cont empl at ed by the cons pi r acy a nd does notbecome m er ged w i th thatcr i m e. ” State v. T hom as , 645 So. 2d 931, 933 ( M i s s . 1994) ( quot i ng D a v is v . S ta te , 485 So. 2d 1055, 1057- 58 ( M i s s . 1986) )
. T hi s C our ti n T hom as al s o s t at ed: “The cr i m e of

cons pi racy d oes notbecome m er ged i n cr i m e comm i t t ed pu rs uan tther et o. " N

o rm a n v. S ta te , 3 8 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 2 8 (M is s . 1 9 8 0 ). A cons pi r acy i s a s epar at e, compl et e of f ens e and the cr i m e i s compl et ed once the a g re e m e n t is fo rm e d ; n o fu rt h e r o v e r t a c t is re q u ir e d to b e s h o w n . Id
. C ons pi r acy t o c om m i ta c r i m e i s di f f er entf r om the cr i m e thati s the obj ectof the cons pi r acy, the f

i r s tneces s ar i l y i nvol ves j oi ntact i on w hi l e t he otherdoes n o t. Mo o re v. S ta te , 2 9 0 S o . 2 d 6 0 3 (M is s . 1 9 7 4 ).

### 9

T hom as , 645 So. 2d at933. T her ef or e, t he St at e had t o prove t hatB erry m ade a n agr eement
w ith o n e o r m o re p e rs o n s to c o m m it a c ri m e . ¶17. T he C our tof

A ppeal s di s t i ngui s hed t he f act s of B erry’ s cas e f

r om thi s C our t ’ s opi ni on i n Sanders on , 8 8 3 S o . 2 d 5 5 8 . W e d o n o t ag re e . W e fin d th a t Sanders on i s dir ect l y on p o in t. ¶18. I n Sanders on , S a n d e rso n h a d a tw o -c o u n t i n d ic tm e n t f o r c o n sp ira c y to c o m m it
a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt a n d a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt. Id
. at56 0. A j ury con vict ed him on b oth coun t s. Id
. O n ap p ea l, th e C o u rtof A p p ea ls affi rm ed the a g g rav ated -assa u ltco n v ict ion ; ho w ev er, i thel d thatthe i ndi ctm entforconspi r acy w as i ns uf f i ci entbeca us e the cons pi r acy c ountf ai l ed to n a m e th e a s s a u lt v ic tim
. Id
. I n Sanders on , thi s C ourtacc ept ed the pet i t i on f orw r i tof
c e rt io ra ri a ft e r th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re v e rs e d S a n d e rs o n ’s c o n s p ir a c y c o n v ic tio n . Id
. at559. T hi s C our tf

ound thatthe cr i m e of cons pi r acy r equi r ed “r ecogni t i on on the partof t he
c o c o n sp ira to rs th a t th e y are en ter in g into a c o m m o n p lan an d k n o w in g ly in ten d to fu rth e r its
comm on purpos e. ” Id
. at560 ( quot i ng P e o p le v . S ta te , 50 1 S o . 2d 42 4 , 42 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 )). Fur therm or e, t hi s C our thel d thatthe vi ct i m ’ s name i s notan ele m entof the cr i m e of
c o n s p ir a c y . Id . at 5 6 1 . T h e C o u rt a lso h e ld th a t “[c ]ou n t o n e c lea rly id e n tified th e v ictim of the aggr avat ed as s aul t , and the nextcountl eads a r eas onabl e per s on t o bel i eve thatt he
cons pi r acy w as ba s ed on the aggr avat ed as s aul t . ” Id
. T h is C o u rtd eterm ined tha t th e C o u rt of A ppeal s had err ed b ecause the i ndi ctm ent , as a w hol e, gave Sande r s on s uf f i ci entnot i ce of the cr i m es c har ged agai ns thi m , a nd the vi ct i m ’ s na m e w as notnece s s ary i n the cons pi r acy
c o u n t. Id
.

### 10

¶19. T he C our tof

A ppeal s ’ opi ni on f

ound thatthe i ndi ctm entw as i ns uf f i ci ent , i n part , due t o a f ai l ur e t o i ncl ude the l anguage “i nt entt o unl aw f ul l y m anuf

actur e a c ontr ol l ed
s ubs t ance . ” W e di s agr ee thatthi s om i s s i on re nder s an i ndi ctm enti ns uf f i ci ent . W e f

i nd t hat the el ement s of

the cr i m e of

cons pi r acy a r e s epar at e and di st i nct f r om the el ement s of

t he under l yi ng cri m e in CountI I , w hi ch i s the bas i s of the cons pi r acy c har ge. I n thi s cas e, t he
cr i m e of cons pi r acy a nd the cr i m e of pos s es s i on of

pr ecur s or s a r e i nher ent l y di f f er ent , and th e c ri m e o f c o n s p ir a c y d o e s n o t m e rg e w ith th e c r im e o f p o s s e s s io n o f p re c u rs o rs . See T hom as , 6 4 5 S o . 2 d a t9 3 3
. W h i l e a d e f e n d a n tmu s tb e i n f

o rme d o f th e u n d e r l y i n g c r i me t o w hi ch he c ons pi r ed, the pr os ecut i on does nothave t o pr ove every el ementof the
u n d e rl y in g c ri m e in o rd e r t o p re v a il o n a c o n s p ir a c y c h a rg e . T hom as , 64 5 So
. 2d a t93 3
. To
re q u ire o th e rw ise e ffe c tiv e ly w o u ld m a k e a c o n sp ira c y ch a rg e o b so lete b y m e rg in g it w ith th e u n d e rl y in g c ri m e . See T hom as , 645 S o. 2 d at933. T her ef or e, the i ndi ctm entdi d not h a v e to in c lu d e th e lan g u a g e th a t B e rry h a d p o ss e ss e d p re c u rso rs w ith th e in ten t to
m anuf actur e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance orw i th know l edge, orunderci r cumst ance s w her e he
re a so n a b ly s h o u ld h a v e k n o w n , tha t th e p re c u rso r c h e m ica ls w o u ld b e u se d u n law fu lly to
m anuf actur e a c ontrol l ed s ubs t ance . W e f i nd thatC ountI of

the i ndi ctm entw as not i ns uf f i ci entf orf ai l ur e t o provi de a ne ces s ary el ementof the cr i m e. T hi s l anguage i s an el ementof

the under l yi ng cr i m e of poss es s i on of a pr ecur s or , notcons pi r acy. Fur therm or e, thi s C our t ’ s rul i ng i n Sanders on , i n w hi ch thi s Courthe l d thatthe name of the vi ct i m i s not
a nec es s ary e l ementof

the cr i m e of

cons pi r acy t o comm i taggr avat ed as s aul tf orconvi ct i on, i s s i m i l art o B err y’ s cas e. B err y’ s i ndi ctm ent di d no thave t o i ncl ude the name of t he pr ecur s or s orthe el ement“i nt entt o unl aw f ul l y m anuf

actur e a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , ” s i nce

### 11

thes e ar e notel ement s of the cr i m e of

cons pi r acy. T he abs ence of the names of

t he p rec u rsors in C o u n t I o f th e ind ictm en t w il l be d iscu ssed in Issu e II. ¶20. Fur therm or e, B err y cont ended, and the C our t of A ppeal s agr eed, that the under l yi ng
cr i m e of pos s essi on of

pr ecur s or s actual l y w as nota cr i m e atal l , ther ef or e, no cons pi r acy
occurr ed, as ther e w as no cr i m e i n w hi ch t o cons pi r e. H ow ever , the i ndi ctm entchar ged B erry w i th “unl aw f

ul l y and f

el oni ous l y” cons pi r i ng t o comm i tthe cr i m e o f pos s es s i on of pr ecur s or s . T hi s Courtha s he l d that“ [ t ] he t erm f el oni ous l y means unl aw f ul l y w i th the i nt ent t o comm i ta f

el ony- gr ade c r i m e. ” A llm a n v. S ta te , 5 7 1 S o . 2 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 ( M is s . 1 9 9 0 ). See D e a l v . S ta te , 589 So. 2d 1257, 1260 ( M i s s . 1991) ( f el oni ous “means done w i th cr i m i nal i nt ent ”)
. T her ef

or e, the i ndi ctm entnot i f i ed B erry thathe w as c har ged w i th fe l oni ous pos s es s i on of

pr ecur s or s , notm er e pos s es s i on of pr ecur s or s . T hi s l anguage a l s o i nf or m ed B e rr y o f t h e s p e c if

ic c ri m in a l in te n t o f t h e c ri m e . ¶ 2 1
. Th e Cou r t o f App e a l s a l s o h e l d t h a tc o n s p i r a c y t o p o s s e s s p r e c u r s o r s i s n o ta c r i me i n cert ai n s i tuat i ons . T he C our tof A ppeal s hel d: Co n s p i r i n g t o p o s s e s s e i th e rp s e u d o e p h e d r i n e o re p h e d r i n e i s n o ta c r i me unl es s the amount pos s es s ed i s tw o hundr ed f i f ty ( 250) dos age uni t s orf i f t een ( 15) gr ams i n w ei ghtand the pos s es s orknow s , orunderci r cumst ances r eas onabl y s houl d know , thatthe ps eudoephe dr i ne ore phedr i ne w i l l be us ed to u n la w fu lly m a n u fa c tu re a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -2 9 -3 1 3 (2 )( c )( i)
. B e rr y v. S ta te , 2 0 0 7 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 4 2 2 at *9
. A g ain, th e ind ictm en t st ated that B erry “unl aw f ul l y and f

el oni ous l y” had cons pi r ed w i th ot her s t o com m i tt he cr i m e of pos s es s i on of pr ecur s or s . Pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi cas e l aw , t he cr i m e of conspi r acy i s com pl et e w hen tw o orm or e peopl e ent eri nt o a “c om m on pl an and know i ngl y i nt end t o f ur theri t s comm on

### 12

purpos e. ’ ” Sanders on , 8 8 3 S o . 2 d a t 5 6 0 ; Mor gan , 741 So. 2d at256. T he cr i m e of
c o n s p ir a c y is c o m p le te w h e n th e re is e v id e n c e o f a n a g re e m e n t. T hom as , 645 So. 2d at933. O nce ther e i s an agr eement , no overtacti n f ur ther ance of

t he cons pi r acy i s re qui r ed t o pr ove th e c ri m e . Id
. C ons equent l y, t he el ement s of c ons pi r acy a nd the el ement s of the under l yi ng crim e, po sses sion o f p rec u rsors, are n o t th e sam e. T h e S tat e d id n o t ha v e to p rov e tha t B erry actual l y pos s es s ed any pr ecur s or s , l eta l one a cert ai n a m ountof pr ecur s or s , i n or dert o pr ove th e crim e o f con sp ir ac y . T h e S tat e o n ly ha d t o pro v e tha t tw o or m o re pe rson s ag ree d to
comm i ta cr i m e. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 1- 1 (Rev. 2006). T he St at e di d nothave t o pr ove an
o v e rt a c t. See T

hom as , 645 So. 2d at933. Fur therm or e, the St at e d i d no thave t o pr ove a qu anti ty o f pr ecursors i n B erry’s possess i on i n o rdert o p rove co nspir acy to po sses s pr ecur s or s . I n contr as t , the C our tof A ppeal s r ef

err ed t o el ement s nece s s ary t o pr ove t he
c ri m e o f p o s s e s s io n o f p re c u rs o rs , C o u n t I I, n o t c o n s p ir a c y . I I . N ot i ce. ¶22. B err y ar gued, and the C our t of A ppeal s agr eed, that C ount I of the i ndi ctm entf ai l ed to n a m e th e sp e c ific p re c u rso rs a n d d id n o t p lac e B e rry o n n o tice o f th e c rim e h e a lleg e d ly
comm i t t ed. ¶23. A t tr i al , B err y’ s c ouns el a r gued thatCount I di d notna m e w hi ch pr ecur s or s w er e at iss u e ; th e re fo re , the in d ictm e n t w a s d e fic ien t. T h e trial c o u rt ru led in p a rt: A s t o C ount1, the C our tf i nds thatC ount1 of

the i ndi ctm ent , f

i r s tand f or emost , does cl ear l y advi s e t he D ef endantof w hatcr i m e he i s char ged w i th. I tcl ear l y set s forth t hathe i s char ged w i th cons pi r acy a nd cl ear l y s et s f or th the appr opr i at e code s ect i on f orc ons pi r acy. A s t o the al l egat i on i n the i ndi ctm ent as to w h at he ’s ch arg ed w ith , the s tat em en t I b eli ev e [de fen se c o u n sel] refers to is p o ss e ss io n o f p re c u rso rs. T h e C o u rt fin d s th a t th e in d ictm e n t as a w h o le cl ear l y advi s es M r . B err y of w hathe i s ch ar ged w i th i n thatC ount2 of the

### 13

i ndi ctm entcl ear l y s et s forth t he pr ecur s orchar ge t o w hi ch M r . B erry i s bei ng c h a rg e d
. A ppar ent l y - - I as s um e that[ def ens e couns el ] ar gues thatthe cha r ge f or ps eudoephe dr i ne orephedr i ne under41- 29- 313 i s nota - - I gues s he’ s ar gui ng i t ’ s nota pr ecur s orchar ge. The Courtf i nds thati s unde rthe pr ecur s ors t atut e: thathe i s char ged underthe precursorst atut e w i th pos s es s i on of , on the f ace of the i ndi ctm ent , the r equi s i t e amountof ps eudoephe dr i ne orephedr i ne, and th a t C o u n t 1 ref

e rs to p o ss e ss io n o f p re c u rso rs, w h ich a re c lea rly d e sc rib e d in C ount2. I f

i nd the i ndi ctm ent , a s t o the obj ect i on, i s s uf f i ci ent , and I ’ l l deny the mot i on t o s tr i ke ordi s m i s s C ount1. ¶24. W i thoutr eci t i ng t he exa ctl anguage of Count I a nd C ountI I of

the i ndi ctm ent s i n I s s ue I , C ountI of

the i ndi ctm enti dent i f

i ed t he under l yi ng cr i m e of t he cons pi r acy, pos s es s i on of pr ecur s or s . C ountI I of the i ndi ctm ents peci f

i ed ps eudoephe dr i ne orephedr i ne as the pr ecur s or s B erry unl aw f ul l y had i n hi s pos s es s i on. “So l ong as a fai r r eadi ng of t he i ndi ctm ent , t aken a s a w hol e, cl ear l y des cr i bes the natur e and c aus e of the cha r ge aga i ns tt he
acc us ed, the i ndi ctm enti s l egal l y s uf f i ci ent . ” Fa rr is , 7 6 4 S o . 2 d a t 4 2 1 ; see al so Sanders on , 8 8 3 S o . 2 d a t 5 6 1
. W h e n rea d as a w h o le, C o u n t I a n d C o u n t II o f th e in d ictm e n t ad e q u a tely des cr i bed and not i f

i ed B err y of

t he char ge agains thi m . Fur therm or e, C ountI I of t he in d ictm e n t p lain ly sta ted th a t B e rry w a s c h a rg e d w ith p o ss e ss io n o f p re c u rso rs p u rsu a n t to M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn otat ed S ect i on 41 -29-313 (R ev. 20 05 ). C ou nt I I of the indi ct m ent al so
s etf or th the names of

the pr ecur s or s . A gai n, w hen C ountI a nd Count I I of the i ndi ctm ent
a re r e a d a s a w h o le , B e rr y h a d n o tic e o f t h e s ta tu te a t is s u e . Fa rr is , 7 6 4 S o . 2 d a t 4 2 1 ; s ee als o Sanders on , 883 So. 2d at561. CO NC L US I ON ¶25. Forthe f

or egoi ng reas on s, the C ou rto f A ppeal s err ed by r ever s i ng and r ender i ng B erry’s c o nv i ct i on forC ou nt I of the indi ct m ent f or consp i racy t o p ossess precursor s.

### 14

T h e re fo re , the ju d g m e n t o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls is re v e rse d , a n d the jud g m e n t o f th e D e S o to C ounty C i r cui tC our ti s r ei ns t at ed and a f f i r m ed. ¶ 2 6
. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE CO UR T OF A P P E A L S I S R E V E R S E D. T HE J UDG M ENT OF THE DESOTO CO UNTY C I RCU I T COU RT I S REI NST ATED AND AF F I RM ED . CONVI CT I ON OF CONS P I RA CY T O P OS S ES S P RE CURS ORS AND S ENTENCE O F TW O ( 2 ) YEARS W I TH TH REE ( 3 ) YEARS OF P OSTRE LE AS E S UP ER VI S I ON, AF F I RM ED . S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., C A R L S O N , D I C K I N S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., CO NCU R. DI AZ , P. J . , DI SS EN TS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED B Y G RA VE S , J . L AMAR , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶27. B eca us e the m aj or i ty m i s appr ehends thi s C our t ’ s pr ece dent r egar di ng s uf f i ci ency of ind ictm en ts an d sets d an g ero u sly pro b lem ati c p rec ed en t, I resp ec tf u ll y dissen t f

rom tod ay ’s deci s i on. ¶28. T he r i ghtof

a c r i m i nal def

endantt o an appr i s al of

the cha r ges he f

ace s i s as ol d as our
r epubl i c i t s el f

. U
. S. C ons t . amend. V
. B utt hi s guar ant ee i s no anci entpr ocedur al court es y. A fo rm a l, c o m p le te in d ic tm e n t p ro v e s a c o u rt ’s ju ri s d ic tio n in a c a s e , s ee B ro o ks v . S ta te , 573 So. 2d 1350, 1352 ( M i s s . 1990) ; al ert s a def endantt o the pr eci s e conduc tby w hi ch the S ta te a lle g e s h e v io la te d th e la w , s o th a t h e m a y p re p a re a n a d e q u a te d e fe n s e , B er gerv. U nited States , 295 U
. S. 78, 82, 55 S. C t . 629, 79 L
. E d. 1314 ( 1935) (c i t at i ons om i t t ed) ; and
n o tifie s h im o f c o n d u c t fo r w h ich h e h a s fa c e d p ro se c u tio n a lre a d y , so th a t h e m a y a v o id d o u b le je o p a rd y . I

d. N otw i ths t andi ng the t echni cal obs t acl es thatB erry’ s i ndi ctm ent
a rg u a b ly h a s h u rd le d , s ee M aj
. O p. at¶8 ( ci t i ng M i s s . U ni f
. C i r. & C ty. R
. 7. 06) , t he ind ictm en t’ s fi rstco u n t un d o u b tedly lea v e s its re ad er a t a l o ss to e x p lai n p rec isel y w h ere Be rry we n ta f

o u l o f th e l a w.

### 15

¶29. A char ge of

cons pi r acy i nher entl y con si st s of t w o prong s – an agr eementand an
u n d e rl y in g c ri m e . See State v. T hom as , 645 So. 2d 931, 933 ( M i s s . 1994)
. T hi s i s the r eas on thatourcourt s do notr ecogni ze a m er gerbetw een c ons pi r acy a nd the cr i m e f orw hi ch p e rp e tra to rs c o n sp ire d – b e c a u se a c o m m o n a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n c rim in a ls p o se s a d a n g e r to
so c iety a lto g e th e r se p a ra te f ro m th e ill e g a l ac t th a t th e y u n d e rta k e . I d. ( ci t i ng N

or m an v. S ta te , 381 So. 2d 1024, 1028 ( M i s s . 1980) )
. T hatdangerdoes notexi s tw hen agree d- upon act i vi ty i s noti l l egal , and s o i ti s axi om at i c thatact or s do notcomm i tcr i m i nal cons pi r acy
w h e n th e y c o n s p ir e to c o m m it a n a c t t h a t i s n o t ille g a l th ro u g h m e a n s th a t a re n o t ille g a l. See Mo rg a n v. S ta te , 7 4 1 S o . 2 d 2 4 6 , 2 5 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). ¶3 0
. T h ere fore , an ind ictm en t for crim inal co n sp ir ac y fun d am en tal ly b u n g les it s ad v isory funct i on w hen i tfai l s t o al l ege an ag reem en tt o co m m i ta cri m e. In the case at bar , the fi rs t countof B err y’ s i ndi ctm entundoubt edl y f ai l s i n pr eci s el y thi s r es pect . T he des cr i pt i on of b o th the ex ist en ce o f th e c o n sp ir ac y an d B e rry ’s all eg ed w il lf u l agre em en t th ere to are ad eq u ately d etail ed , bu t th e c ri m e w h ich th e ind ictm en t acc u ses B erry o f co n sp ir ing tow ard – “pos s es s i on of

pr ecur s or s ” – i s no cr i m e ata l l
. Cer t ai nl y, a nyone underthe j ur i s di ct i on of th is s tate c o m m its a c rim e w h e n h e c o n s p ire s to p o ss e ss p re c u rso rs w ith th e in ten t to
m anuf actur e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance , M i s s . Code A nn. § 41- 29- 313 ( R ev. 2005) , butthi s act i s a f ar cry fr om the act of m ere possess i on of precurs ors. A s the fact s of this case d e m o n stra te, th e first c o u n t o f th e in d ictm e n t, i f h e ld to b e s u ffic ien t, w o u ld b e e n o u g h to
s nar e an unt ol d num berof s ni f f l i ng W al gr eens s hopper s every day. ¶ 3 1
. T h e m a

jo rity in sis ts th a t th is sh o rtc o m in g is i m m a ter ial b y res tin g o n o u r ho ld in g in Fa rr is v . S ta te , 7 6 4 S o . 2 d 4 1 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ), in w h ich w e fo u n d a c o n sp ira c y in d ictm e n t to

### 16

b e le g a lly s u ff

ic ie n t. I d. at421. T he maj or i ty s ugges t s thatw e hel d i n Fa rr is “thatw her e the in d ictm e n t trac k e d th e lan g u a g e o f th e c o n sp ira c y sta tu te, . . . th e d e fe n d a n t w a s s u ffic ien tly
no t i fi ed o f the ch arge he w as f aci ng . . . .” M aj. O p. at¶14
. W i th all du e res pect, this i s a
m i s s t at ementof

thathol di ng. The f

actthatthe cons pi r acy i ndi ctm enti n Fa rr is t r acke d t he
c o n sp ira c y sta tu te c e rta in ly c o n trib u ted to o u r ju d g m e n t th a t th e in d ictm e n t w a s le g a lly
s uf f i ci ent , butw e al s o consi der ed w hether“t he of f ens e w as cl ear l y des cr i bed” a nd w hether th e in d ictm e n t “ su ffic ien tly n o tified F a rris o f th e c h a rg e a g a in st h im , thu s e n a b lin g h im to pr epar e a de f

ens e. ” Fa rr is , 764 So. 2d at421. I n Fa rr is , the i ndi ctm ent ’ s det ai l ed des cr i pt i on
o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s c rim in a l a g re e m e n t a c c o m p a n ied a n a c c o u n t o f th e u n d e rly in g ill e g a l ac ts
an d the c ri m inal inten t th ere o f. ¶32. B uti n the case at bar, the fi rs tco un to f Ber ry’ s i ndi ctm ental t ogetherom i t s any
r ef er ence t o unde r l yi ng cr i m i nal i nt ent– s peci f i cal l y, the i nt entt o m anuf actur e a c ontr ol l ed
su b stan ce , w h ich w o u ld h av e re n d ere d p re c u rso r p o sses sion a c ri m inal ac t. T h is f ail u re
r ender s the i ndi ctm entno l es s i ns uf f i ci entthan i f

the gr and j ury ha d i ndi ct ed B erry f or p o ss e ss io n o f a b a se b a ll b a t; th e m e re fac t th a t a b a se b a ll b a t m a y b e u se d in c rim in a l ac tiv ity does noti n and of

i t s el f r enderi l l egal a cons pi r acy t o acqui r e one. ¶33. A ppar ent l y oper at i ng underthi s re al i zat i on, t he m aj or i ty re l i es heavi l y on our hol di ng i n S a n de rs o n v. S ta te , 883 So. 2d 558 ( M i s s . 2004) , a ca s e w hi ch, l i ke t hatatbar , addr es s ed the s u ffi cien cy o f an ind ictm en t f o r crim inal co n sp ir ac y an d the u n d erlying crim e it self. A l though the i ndi ctm entf orcons pi r acy na m ed Sander s on’ s vi ct i m , h i s i ndi ctm entf ort he
a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt i tse lf m e n tio n e d n o n a m e , a n d h e th e re fo re c o n ten d e d b e fo re u s th a t h is in d ic tm e n t f

o r c o n s p ir a c y fa ile d to a lle g e a c ri tic a l e le m e n t. I d. a t 5 6 0 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls

### 17

agr eed w i th Sander s on, butw e r ever s ed f ortw o r eas ons – beca us e a vi ct i m ’ s name i s notan
e le m e n t o f th e c ri m e o f c o n s p ir a c y , id. a t561, a nd be caus e the vi ct i m ’ s name appear ed i n the other co un to f

the i ndi ctm ent , ther eby “a s a w hol e pr ovi d[ i ng] Sander s on w i th s uf f i ci ent not i ce r egar di ng t he char ges agai ns thi m . . . . ” I d. See a l so Fa rr is , 76 4 So
. 2d a t42 1 ( “ So l ong as a f

ai rr eadi ng o f t he i ndi ctm ent , t aken a s a w hol e, cl ear l y des cr i bes the natur e and
ca u se o f th e c h arg e a g ains t th e a cc u sed , the in d ictm en t i s leg all y su ffi cien t. ”). ¶34. N ei ther of thes e r eas ons appl i es t o the cas e at bar , beca us e S and ers on ’s i ndi ctm ent l i s t ed the cr i t i cal el ement s of bot h cons pi r acy a nd aggr avat ed as s aul t . T he el ementom i t t ed f r o m th e f

i r s tc o u n to f

Be r r y ’ s i n d i c t me n t– n a me l y , i n t e n tt o c o mmi ta n u n d e r l y i n g c r i me – i s a cruci al el ementof cons pi r acy. “C ons pi r acy i s a combi nat i on of tw o orm or e per s ons t o acc om pl i s h an unl aw f ul purpos e . . . . ” P e o

p les v. S ta te , 501 So. 2d 424, 428 ( M i s s . 1987) ( quot i ng G riffin v. S ta te , 4 8 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 2 6 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 )). B u t if an in d ictm e n t fa ils to
e n u n c iate th a t u n law fu l p u rp o se , as d id th e f ir s t c o u n t o f B e rry ’s in d ictm e n t, th e n it f undament al l y f

ai l s t o des cr i be s uf

f i ci ent l y the cr i m e of

cons pi r acy. ¶35. T he s econd count ’ s m ent i on of i nt ent t o m anuf actur e a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance does not
sa v e th e first c o u n t’s fa ilu re b e c a u se th e sta tu te th a t B e rry a lleg e d ly v io late d in C o u n t 2 actual l y l i s t s tw o s epar at e cr i m es – ther ef or e l eavi ng uncl eart he degr ee of i nt entw i th w hi ch the gr and j ury al l eges B err y act ed i n the f i r s tc ount . Subs ect i on ( 1) ( a) ( I ) of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A n n o ta te d S e c tio n 4 1 -2 9 -3 1 3 m a k e s a c ri m e o f “ k n o w in g ly o r i n te n tio n a lly p u rc h a s [in g ] .

. . any tw o or m or e of

the [ chemi cal s l i s t ed i n Subse ct i on ( b) ] i n any amountw i th the i nt ent to u n law full y m an u fac ture a co n tr o ll ed su b sta n c e.” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -29 -31 3 (1)(a)(I) ( R ev. 2005)
. Subse ct i on (1)( a)( i i ) m akes a cr i m e of the s ame act , but“know i ng orunder

### 18

ci r cumst ance s w her e one r eas onabl y s houl d know thatt he l i s t ed pr ecur s orchem i cal ordrug
w i l l be us ed t o unl aw f

ul l y m anuf

actur e a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance . ” I d. at( 1) ( a) ( i i )
. A r guabl y, t he se cond c ou ntof

Berr y’ s i nd i c t mentdo e s no te ve n d e s c r i be thi s c r i me s uf f i c i e nt l y, beca us e the i ndi ctm ental l eges he s ought“ps eudoephe dr i ne or ephedri ne, ” r atherthan the tw o orm or e che m i cal s requi red fora convi ct i on underSect i on 41- 29- 313. W hi l e the
su ffi cien cy o f th e ind ictm en t’ s sec o n d co u n t i s n o t a qu e stio n b efo re u s, the c o n fusio n left open by C ount2 cer t ai nl y does notprovi de t he s or tof i nf or m at i on thata r eas onabl e r eade r
w o u ld n e e d to fill i n th e in fo rm a tiv e g a p s le ft b y C o u n t 1 . T h e in d ic tm e n t’ s f ir s t co u n t, t heref ore, i s i ns uf

f i ci entt o s us t ai n a cr i m i nal convi ct i on beca us e i tdoes notal l ege
su ffic ien tly a c rim in a l ac t. ¶3 6. T oday’ s de c i s i on , tho ug h do ub t l e s s l y r oo t e d i n t he pur es tof i nt ent i ons t o s ave i ndi ctm ent s f

r om thei rauthor s ’ ove r s i ght s , ope ns the doort o pr obl ems thathi ghl i ghtthe nee d fo r stric t re v iew o f th e se q u e stio n s. In th e c a se o f a s e ria l b a n k ro b b e r, su p p o se th a t th e S tate
w er e t o hand dow n a t w o- counti ndi ctm ent– one countforone of hi s s peci f i c r obber i es , and anot her co un tm er el y f orcons pi r acy t o r ob a bank. T he def endantm i ghtas s um e thatt he
c o n sp ira c y c o u n t r e fe rs to th e sa m e b a n k fo r w h ich h e fa c e s th e ro b b e ry c h a rg e , b u t th is
w o u ld a llo w th e p ro se c u tio n to sp rin g a n a m b u sh o n th e d a y o f tria l b y fo c u sin g its
con spi racy case on a com plet el y separat e b ank robb ery. T his resul tfl i es i n the f ace of cou rt s’ lo n g sta n d in g re sp e c t fo r a n in d ictm e n t’s p u rp o se o f a ler tin g d e fe n d a n ts t o th e sp e c ific
c o n d u c t f

o r w h ic h th e y h a v e b e e n b ro u g h t to s ta n d tr ia l, s ee B er gerv. U nited States , 295 U
. S. 78, 82, 55 S. C t . 629, 79 L
. E d. 1314 ( 1935) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) , buti ti s pr eci s el y t he
r es ul ts anct i oned by the maj or i ty’ s deci s i on.

### 19

¶37. T o r eac h thi s cas e’ s corr ectconcl us i on, w e nee d notdi s turb ourl ong- hel d pr act i ce of
a n a ly z in g q u e s tio n s s u c h a s th e s e w ith “ a f a irr e a d in g o f th e in d ic tm e n t, t a k e n a s a w h o le ,” Fa rr is , 764 So. 2d at421, norneed w e r ebuke ourr ecogni t i on i n Sanders on thatf actual d e tails f ro m o n e c o u n t in a m u lti -c o u n t in d ictm e n t m a y b e c o n sid e re d to fill i n g a p s in anothercountt o det erm i ne w hetheran i nd i ct m ent“pr ovi de[ s a def endant ] w i th s uf

f i ci ent not i ce r egar di ng the cha r ges agai ns thi m . ” S a n de rs o n v. S ta te , 8 83 S o. 2d 55 8, 56 1 (M i ss. 2004)
. B utw e have neverhel d, as does t oday’s m aj or i ty, thata f undament al l y i ns uf

f i ci ent charge w i thin a m ult i -count i nd i ct m ent m ay b e saved by ano ther charge’s suff i ci ency . Just as a l on e i l l um i nated bul b on a stri ng of C hri stm as l i gh t s does no tredeem i t s unli tneighbo rs , the ade quaci es of

s om e cha r ges i n a mul t i
- counti ndi ctm entdo nots ave the f undament al i nad equ aci es of others. ¶ 3 8
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls c o rre c tly re a c h e d th is c o n c lu sio n . B e c a u se I w o u ld a ffirm its d e c isio n to re v e rse the jud g m e n t of the D e S o to C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt, I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. GRAVE S , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.