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 4 - CT - 0 0 3 6 8 - S CT QUANG THANH

TRA N
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 : 02/ 09/ 2004 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . W IL L IA M E . C H A P M A N , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: RANKI N COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: J U LI E A N N EPPS AT T OR NE YS 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 : W . D A N I EL H I N CH CL I FF DI S TRI CT AT TORNEY: DAV I D BYRD CLARK NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI SP OSI TI ON : J UD GM ENT O F THE CO UR T OF A PP EALS I S A FFIRM E D - 08/ 16/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 4 - CT - 0 0 3 6 9 - S CT J OHNS ON QUO C N GUY EN
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 09/ 2004 T R IA L JU D G E : W IL L IA M E . C H A P M A N , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: RANKI N COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: THO M AS E. RO YA LS THO M AS R. M AY FI ELD ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: OFFI CE O F THE ATTO RN EY G ENER AL: BY : W . D A N I EL H I N CH CL I FF

### 2

DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: DAV I D BYRD CLARK 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 AF F I RMED . T HE J UDGMENT O F T H E R A N K IN C O U N T Y C IR C U IT CO UR T I S RE VE RS E D AND R E NDE RE D - 08/ 16/ 2007 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. DI CKI NS ON, J US TI CE , F OR THE COURT : ¶1. T w o m en and a w om an w er e i ndi ct ed f or m oney l aun deri ng af t er l aw enf

or cement of f i ci al s s ear ched thei rve hi cl e and di s cover ed a f al s e gas t ank cont ai ni ng more than $170, 000 i n c as h. T he dr i vera nd one of the pas s enger s w er e convi ct ed, and t he ot her pas s engerw as acqui t t ed. T he i s s ues pre s ent ed ar e ( 1) w hethert he r ecor d cont ai ned evi dence
su ffic ien tly lin k in g th e p a ss e n g e r to th e m o n e y , a n d (2 ) w h e th e r th e ind ictm e n t’s fa ilu re to sp ec if y th e all eg ed i ll eg al acti v ity w h ich p rod u ce d th e m o n ey req u ir es re v ersa l of th e d ri v er’s
c o n v ictio n . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re v e rse d th e p a ss e n g e r’s c o n v ictio n , h o ld in g th a t th e S tate d id n o t m e e t it s b u rd e n o f c o n n e c tin g th e p a ss e n g e r to th e m o n e y . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
a ffirm e d th e d riv e r’s c o n v ictio n , h o ld in g th a t th e in d ictm e n t w a s n o t er ro n e o u s b e c a u se it tracked the l ang uag e of the st atute. A l tho ug h w e agree w i th the C o u rtof A pp eal s’ dis po si t i on o f this case as t o b oth defendan t s, w e nev ertheles s grant ed cert i orar i t o ad dress the im po rt ant quest i on of w hetheri nd i ct m ents f or m on ey l aun deri ng ar e r equ i red t o d i scl ose the under l yi ng i l l egal act i vi ty w hi ch the St at e al l eges pr oduced the money.

### 3 B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶ 2 . W h ile p a rk e d in th e m e d ian o f In ter sta te 2 0 in M iss iss ip p i ne a r th e E a st B ra n d o n e x it, R anki n C ount y D eputy Sher i f f Shannon Penn o bs e rve d a w e s tbo un d 1 99 6 For d F- 150 pi ckup
cr os s the r i ght
- hand “f

og l i ne” di r ect l y i n fr ontof hi m . U pon pul l i ng t he vehi cl e overf ort he
ca reless d ri v ing infraction , D ep u ty P en n co n d u cted a “ roa d side interview ” o f th e d ri v er, Q uang Thanh T r an, and t he t w o pass enger s , Johns on Q uoc N guyen and H anh T i M y L e. T he occupa nt s t ol d hi m they borr ow ed the truck i n C har l ot t e, N or th C ar ol i na and w er e tr avel i ng I
- 20 t o H ous t on, T exas . T hi s ar ous ed D eputy Penn’s s us pi ci on beca us e, as he w oul d l at er t es t i f y, “i tw as s om e thi ng s [ s i c] aboutthei rtr avel i t i ner ary. T hey w er e goi ng t o a s our ce c ity , c o m in g fr o m N o rt h C a ro lin a , th ir d p a rt y v e h ic le , b o rr o w e d ty p e s itu a tio n .” ¶ 3 . D e p u ty P e n n re q u e ste d a n d re c e iv e d p e rm iss io n fro m T ra n to c o n d u c t a v e h icle
s ear ch, dur i ng w hi ch the deputy not i ced dua l gas t anks , one of w hi ch appe ar ed t o have be en t amper ed w i th orr emoved. T he f uel l i nes and w i r es runni ng t o t he t ank w er e cutand bent
over , the s par e t i r e had been r epos i t i oned, the nut s a nd bol t s t o the t ank w er e s hi ny and not
rus ty, and the bands ar ound t he t ank had be en s hi f t ed. ¶4. Suspe ct i ng thatthe gas t ank m i gh tcont ai n contr aband, D eputy Penn as ked the occupa nt s t o f

ol l ow hi m t o the R anki n C ounty Sher i f f’ s D epart m entw her e, af t err emovi ng and exam i ni ng the s us pi ci ous gas t ank, he not i ced a hi nged ac ces s panel
. H e opene d the
a c c e ss p a n e l an d d isc o v e re d $ 1 7 0 ,0 4 0 , v a c u u m -se a led in p las tic a n d a lu m in u m fo il. ¶5. D uri ng quest i on i ng , al l three s uspects cl ai m ed the truck w as purchased w i thin the p ast
w e e k o r tw o b y N g u y e n ’s g irlfrie n d in N o rth C a ro lin a , an d th e y w e re o n th e ir w a y to H ous t on t o go s hoppi ng. A l l thr ee de ni ed any know l edge orow ner s hi p of the money.

### 4

¶6. A f

t erthe i nt err ogat i ons , the R anki n C ounty Sher i f f’ s D epart m entr el eas ed al l t hr ee o c c u p a n ts a n d in iti a ted a c iv il fo rfe itu re p ro c e e d in g a g a in st th e c a sh . A fte r R a n k in C o u n ty
r ece i ved a def

aul tj udgm entagai ns tt he m oney, T r an, N guyen and Le f i l ed a mot i on f

orr el i ef f r om thatde f

aul tj udgm ent . A t t ache d ther et o, i n s w orn af f i davi t s , N guyen and Le cont i nued t o de ny a ny know l edge of the m oney, butTr an change d hi s s t ory a nd c l ai m ed t he m oney
r epr es ent ed hi s and hi s f ami l y’ s l i f

e s avi ngs. T he St at e then i ni t i at ed cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs and obt ai ned i ndi ctm ent s agai ns tal l thr ee oc cupant s f oral l eged money l aunder i ng. ¶7. T he thr ee de f

endant s f i l ed pr e- tr i al m ot i ons t o quash the i ndi ctm ent s and s uppr es s t he evi dence f

ound as a re s ul tof D eputy P enn’ s sea r ches
. A f t era hea r i ng, the tr i al courtdeni ed th e m o tio n s, a n d th e m a tter p ro c e e d e d to trial. ¶8. A tt r i al , the St at e t ender ed Lar ry D avi ds on, an A gentw i th the Feder al D rug E nf or cementA dm i ni s tr at i on, as an expe r tin “drug t r af f i cki ng and the pr ocee ds of drug tra ffic k in g .” C o u n se l fo r th e d e fe n se w a s a llo w e d to v o ir d ire A g e n t D a v id so n re g a rd in g h is q u ali fi ca ti o n s, foll o w ing w h ich th e d efe n se a cc ep ted h im , w ith o u t ob jecti o n , as a n ex p ert
w i tnes s . A gentD avi ds on t es t i f i ed that , af

t erexam i ni ng t he m odi f i ed gas t ank, r eadi ng t he tr ans cr i pt s of

the thr ee def

endant s ’ s t at ement s , a nal yzi ng phot ogr aphs of the m oney s ei zed by D eputy Penn, and exa m i ni ng the of f ens e r eport , he concl uded thatthe money w as der i ved f r om nar cot i cs t raf

fi cki ng. T he onl y evi dence of any l i nk betw een the def endant s and the
m oney w as T r an’ s as s ert i on thatthe money bel onged t o hi m and hi s f ami l y. ¶9. T he def

endant s m oved f

ordi r ect ed ver di ct s , w hi ch w er e deni ed. T he j ury f ound T r an and N guyen gui l ty, a nd f ound Le notgui l ty. T he tr i al courts ent ence d both T r an and N guyenTran v. St ate , 2 00 7 M iss . L EX IS 16 0 (M iss . M ar. 1, 20 07 ); 2 00 7 M iss . L EX IS 16 1 (M iss
. 1 Mar . 1 , 2 00 7); N

gu yen v . S ta te , 2007 Mis s. LEXI S 1 62 (Mi ss. Mar . 1 , 2 00 7); 20 07 Mis s. LEXI S 163 (Miss. Mar. 1, 2007). Although we grantedthe State’s petiti on for certior ari in or der to revi ew the record, we 2 he reb y f ind that th e C ourt o f A

pp eal ’s disp os iti on

of De fend ant N guye n’s cas e w as c orrect . 

### 5 t o tw enty ( 20) year s i n t he cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons . T r an and N gu yen bo th fi l ed ap peals w hich w ere assi gn ed t o and co nsoli dated b y the C ou rtof A pp eal s. ¶ 1 0 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re v e rse d N g u y e n ’s c o n v ictio n , fin d in g th e e v id e n c e in su ffic ien t. B utw i th t hr ee j udges di s s ent i ng, i taf f i r m ed Tra n’ s convi ct i on, hol di ng the i ndi ctm entw as
n o t d e fe c tiv e . T

ra n v. S ta te , 2 0 0 6 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 3 9 4 (M iss. C t. A p p . M ay 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 ). B oth T r an ( as t o the af f i r m ance of

hi s convi ct i on) and the St at e ( as t o t he r ever s al of N guyen’ s convi ct i on) f i l ed Pet i t i ons f

orW r i tof

C ert i or ar i , w hi ch w e gr ant ed 1 A N A L Y S IS ¶ 1 1 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fu lly ad d re ss e d e a c h o f th e d e fe n d a n ts’ n u m e ro u s a ss ig n m e n ts of err orand, exceptfori t s anal ys i s of the s uf f i ci ency of

the i ndi ctm ent , w e adopther ei n t he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls ’ a n a ly s is
. See T r an , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 394. 2

I. ¶12. T r an as s ert s thatthe i ndi ctm entagai ns thi m , w hi ch al l eged he w as tr ans por t i ng m oney der i ved f r om “s om e unl aw f

ul act i vi ty, ” f

ai l ed t o di s cl ose to hi m the natur e of the al l eged
u n law fu l ac tiv ity . T h u s, T ra n a rg u e s, th e in d ictm e n t w a s le g a lly in su ffic ien t, an d h is convi ct i on m us tbe r ever s ed. O urr evi ew of the l egal s uf

f i ci ency of

a n i ndi ctm enti s an i s s ue o f l a w , a n d th e re fo re is re v ie w e d d e n o v o . P e terso n v. S ta te , 67 1 S o. 2d 64 7, 65 2 (M i ss. 1 9 9 6 ).

### 6

¶13. T r an w as i ndi ct ed and c onvi ct ed underM i s s i s s i ppi ’ s m oney l aunder i ng s t atut e, w hi ch sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt: W h o e v e r tra n sp o rts, tra n sm its, o r tra n sfe rs, o r a ttem p ts to tra n sp o rt, tra n sm it, ortr ans f era mone t ary i ns trum entorf unds f r om a pl ace i n the s t at e t o or thr ough a pl ace out s i de the st at e or t o a pl ace i n the s t at e f r om orthr ough a pl ace out si de t he s t at e; ( i i ) know i ng thatthe monet ary i ns trum entorf unds inv o lved in the tr an sp o rt ati o n rep rese n t th e p roc ee d s o f s om e f orm of u n law fu l activity a n d k n o w in g th a t su c h tra n sp o rta tio n is d e sig n e d in w h o le ori n part. . . t o conce al ordi s gui s e the natur e, the l ocati on, the s our ce, the o w n ersh ip, or th e c o n tr o l of th e p roc ee d s o f s pecif i ed unl aw f

ul act i vi t y . . . shal l be [s ubj ectt o] i m pri sonm ent f or not m ore than tw enty ( 20 ) year s. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -2 3 -1 0 1 (1 )(b )(ii)(1 ) (e m p h a se s a d d e d ). T ra n ’s in d ictm e n t, clo se ly tra c k in g th e lan g u a g e o f th e sta tu te, c h a rg e d h im w ith
w il lf ull y, un l aw ful l y an d fel on i ou sl y tr anspo rt [i n g ] o r att em p t[ ing ] to tr an sp o rt a m onet ary i ns trum entor f unds f r om a pl ace i n the s t at e t o orthr ough a pl ace out s i de the s t at e ort o a pl ace i n the s t at e f r om orthr ough a pl ace out s i de the s t at e know i ng thatthe monet ary i ns trum entor funds i nvol ved i n the tr ans por t at i on re pr es entpr ocee ds of s om e unl aw f

ul act i vi t y and know i ng that s uch tr ans por t at i on w as des i gned t o conce al ordi s gui s e the natur e, l ocat i on, the s our ce, t he ow ner s hi p orthe contr ol of the pr ocee ds , i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 97- 23- 10 1 (1972) , as amended, 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. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶14. Pr i ort o tr i al , T r an moved t o quash the i ndi ctm ent , cl ai m i ng i tf ai l ed t o s peci f

y t he al l eged “ unl aw f

ul act i vi ty” w hi ch pr oduced the f unds f ound i n t he gas t ank. T r an’ s couns el
a rg u e d to th e trial c o u rt th a t th e ter m “ so m e u n law fu l ac tiv ity ” w a s u n c lea r a n d c o u ld encompas s gun runni ng, gambl i ng, ora ny othercr i m e, and that“[ the i ndi ctm ent ] j us ts ays

‘ s peci f i ed unl aw f

ul act i vi ty. ’ A nd I j us tdon’ tknow how t o def end an a m bi guous s t at ement lik e th a t.”

### 7

¶15. T he tr i al courtdi s agr eed, hol di ng thats i nce the l anguage i n the i ndi ctm enttr acke d t he l a n g u a g e i n th e s t a tu t e , t h e d e f e n d a n t s we r e a d e q u a t e l y i n f o r me d o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s tt h e m. I ti s the ques t i on of

w hetherthe i ndi ctm entw as r equi r ed t o di s cl os e the “unl aw f ul act i vi ty”
w hich w e no w add res s. ¶16 . T he go vernm ent m ay no t prosecute a cri m i nal defend ant “for a capit al , or ot herw i se in fa m o u s c rim e , u n le s s o n a p re se n tm e n t o r in d ictm e n t o f a g ra n d ju ry . . . . ” U .S . C o n st.
a m e n d . V . T h e p u rp o se o f a n in d ictm e n t is to sa tisfy th e c o n stitu tio n a l re q u ire m e n t th a t a “def endantbe i nf

or m ed of the natur e and c aus e of the ac cus at i on . . . ” U . S. Const . amend. V I; M is s . C o n s t. a rt . 3 , § 2 6 . See a l so U . R . C . C . C . 7. 06 ( i ndi ctm entm ustincl ude a “ pl ai n, conci s e and de f

i ni t e w r i t t en st at ementof the es s ent i al f

act s cons t i tut i ng the of

f ens e cha r ged and sh a ll f

ul l y not i f y the def endant of the natur e and caus e of the accus at i on. ” ) (e m p h a sis
a d d e d ). T h e p u rp o se o f th e se re q u ire m e n ts is to e n su re tha t crim in a l de fe n d a n ts h a v e a fa ir and ade quat e opportuni ty t o pr epar e f orand def

end aga i ns tthe cha r ges br oughtagai ns tt hem b y th e g o v e rn m e n t. T h e re fo re , in o rd e r fo r a n in d ictm e n t to b e s u ffic ien t, “it m u st c o n tain the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e cha r ged. ” P eters on , 671 So. 2d at652- 53 ( ci t i ng May v. S ta te , 2 0 9 M iss. 5 7 9 , 4 7 S o . 2 d 8 8 7 (19 5 0 )). ¶17. I ti s gener al l y s uf f i ci entthat an i ndi ctm ents etf orth the of

f ens e i n the w or ds of

t he
s t atut e i t s el f

, a s l ong a s " thos e w or ds of themsel ves f

ul l y, di r ect l y, and expr es s l y, w i thoutany uncert ai nty orambi gui ty, s etfor t h al l t he el ement s nece s s ary t o cons t i tut e the of f ence i ntended t o b e pu nis hed
. " U n ite d S ta te s v . Ca r ll, 1 0 5 U . S . 61 1 , 61 2 , 26 L . E d
. 1 1 3 5 (18 8 2 ); W a r d v. S ta te, 4 7 9 S o . 2 d 7 1 3 , 7 1 5 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ); H ic k o m b o tto m v. S ta te, 409 So. 2d 1337 (M iss . 1 9 8 2 ); A n th o ny v. S ta te, 3 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 6 (M iss . 1 9 7 7 ); S ta te v. L a b e lla , 232 So. 2d

### 8

354 (M i s s . 1970 )
. M or e ov e r , " the l a ng ua ge of the s t a tut e may b e us e d i n the ge ne r al des cr i pt i on of

a n of f ence , buti tm us tbe ac compani ed w i th s uch a s t at ementof the f act s and ci r cumst ance s as w i l l i nf or m the ac cus ed of

the s peci f

i c of f ence , comi ng underthe gene r al descri pti on , w i th w hich he i s charged. " U n ited S tates v. Hess , 1 2 4 U .S . 4 8 3 , 4 8 7 , 8 S . C t. 5 7 1 , 3 1 L . E d
. 5 1 6 (18 8 8 ). ¶ 1 8 . Ho we v e r , s i mp l y t r a c k i n g t h e l a n g u a g e o f a s t a tu t e wi l l n o ta l wa y s b e s u f f i c i e n t . As t his C our tpoi nt ed outi n J o n e s v . S ta te , “ w he the ra n i nd i c t menti n the l a ngua ge of t he
s t atute i s s uf

f i ci ent , orw hetherotherw or ds oract s ar e nec es s ary t o pr oper l y char ge the
comm i s s i on of

a cr i m e i s depende ntupon the natur e of the of f ens e and the t erm s i n w hi ch itis de scribe d b y the s tatu te. ” 8 5 6 S o . 2 d 2 8 5 , 2 8 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). II. ¶19. B y w ay of

anal ogy, thi s C our thas cl ear l y and cons i s t ent l y hel d thatan i ndi ctm ent wh i c h s i mpl y f

o l l o ws th e l a n g u a g e o f

M i s s i s s i p p i ’ s b u r g l a ry s t a tu t e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t . Th e c r i me of burgl ary of a dw el l i ng has tw o el ement s : ( 1) the bur gl ar i ous br eaki ng and ent er i ng a d w e lli n g , a n d (2 ) th e fe lo n io u s in ten t to c o m m it s om e cr i m e ther ei n. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 1 7 -2 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ); T

h a m e s v . S ta te , 221 M i s s . 573, 73 So. 2d 134 ( 195 4). B ecaus e the of f ens e of bur gl ary r equi r es the St at e t o pr ove the def endantbr oke i nt o a dw el l i ng w i t h t he i nt entt o comm i t“s om e cr i m e ther ei n, ” the i ndi ctm entm us ts peci fy t he cri m e the ac cus ed in te n d e d to c o m m it. Ho d g e s v . S ta te , 912 So. 2d 730, 774 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng L am ber t v. S ta te , 4 6 2 S o . 2 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 1 (M iss
. 1 9 8 4 )). T h is p ro p o sitio n h a s a lon g h isto ry in M iss iss ip p i. ¶2 0 . In 1 8 9 7 , this C o u rtrec o g n ized that an ind ictm en t w h ich fa il s to a ll eg e the p arti cu lars
o f t h e u n d e rl y in g c ri m e s h o u ld b e q u a s h e d
. State v. B uchanan , 75 M i s s . 349, 22 So. 875

### 9

( 1897)
. I n B uchanan , t he i ndi ctm entchar ged the def endantw i th the “w i l l f

ul , f el oni ous and b u rg la ri o u s in te n t th e n a n d th e r e to c o m m it s o m e c ri m e to th e ju ro rs a fo re s a id u n k n o w n .” I d. at350. A f

t erthe tr i al courts us t ai ned the def endant ’ s demurr erf

ori ns uf f i ci ent i ndi ctm ent , the A t t orney G ener al cont ended on appea l thatan i nt entt o comm i ta named p arti cu lar fel o n y is un n ec essa ry a n d co n tr ary to state p o li cy . H o w ev er, th is C o u rt char act er i zed the A t t orney G ener al ’ s r eas oni ng as “uns ound, beca us e thi s gener al and i ndef i ni t e ave r m entof

an i nt entt o comm i ts om e cr i m e, does notadvi s e the ac cus ed of t he natur e and c har act erof the cr i m e, pre f err ed aga i ns thi m . ” I

d. T he def

endant , they cont i nued, “i s l ef tt o gr ope i n the dark as t o w hatcr i m e the st at e m ay of f erevi dence t o show he i nt ended t o comm i t . ” I

d . at351. ¶21. T hi s i s s ue w as revi s i t ed i n B ru m fie ld v. S ta te w h e re , u p o n lay in g o u t th e e lem e n ts
nece s s ary f

ora s uf f i ci entbur gl ary i ndi ctm ent , the C our tnot ed that“[ b] oth el ement s m us tbe l ai d outi n the i ndi ctm enta nd both m us tbe pr oven as l ai d. ” B ru m fie ld , 206 M i s s . 506, 507, 4 0 S o . 2 d 2 6 8 (1 9 4 9 ); s ee al s o N e w b u r n v. S ta te, 2 0 5 S o . 2 d 2 6 0 ( M i s s . 1 9 6 7 ) ( th e c r i me that an all eg ed b u rglar inten d ed to co m m it"m u st be n am ed in the ind ictm en t")
. T h e C o u rt ’s
m ai n conce r n i n B ru m

fie ld wa s n o t i c e t o th e a c c u s e d o f th e n a tu r e a n d c h a r a c t e ro f th e c r i me f orw hi ch he w as i ndi ct ed. T he C our tconcl uded that“[ i ] n comm on f ai rnes s , e very def

endant
c h a rg e d w ith a h ig h c rim e is e n tit led to k n o w sp e c ifica lly a n d p a rticu lar ly w h a t fe lo n y is la id t o hi s char ge. ” I

d. ¶22. I n S ta te v . B e rr

y h ill , thi s C our tnot ed thatan i ndi ctm entw hi ch does nots peci f y t he under l yi ng cr i m e t o the cha r ge of bur gl ary does notadequa t el y i nf or m the def

endantof the natur e of thatpart i cul archa r ge be caus e the under l yi ng cr i m e coul d be “pr obabl y one hundr edSp eci fi cal ly, Su bs ection (3) (a) states : 3 The term “knowing that pr operty invol ved in a financial transact ion repres ents the pro cee ds of

som e fo rm

of unlaw ful activi ty”me an s that thepers on kn ewtheprope rty invo lve d in thetran sac tio n rep res ented p roc eed s from

s om e fo rm , tho ugh not necessari ly whichform , of activit y that const itutes a f

elony under state or federal law
. Mis s. Co deAnn. § 9 7-2 3-1 01 (3) (a) (Rev . 2 00 6)( em ph asi s adde d). 

### 10 d iffe re n t cr im e s a n d /o r m isd e m e a n o rs a n d still c o n stitu te th e c h a rg e ” a n d m a y b e su b jec t to “evol vi ng pr os ecut or i al t heor i es . ” B e rr y h ill , 703 So. 2d 250, 256 ( M i s s . 1997). S uch t act i cs ar e “a todds w i th thi s C our t ' s j ur i s prudence on the n eed f oran i ndi ctm entt o gi ve enough not i ce f ora def endantt o pr epar e a de f

ens e. ” I d. ; s ee al s o L am bert , 462 So. 2d at319 ( s t at i ng thatbeca us e the i ndi ctm entprovides t he bas i s of not i ce t o the def

endantof

the cr i m e f

or
w hi ch he i s t o be tr i ed, the f ai l ur e t o i nf

or m of the cr i m e under l yi ng the bu rgl ary w as tantam o u n t t o fail ing to allow a d efe n d an t t o p rep are a d efe n se). III . ¶ 2 3 . T ra n a rg u e s th a t h is in d ictm e n t em p lo y in g th e ter m “ u n law fu l a c tiv ity ” is
uncons t i tut i onal l y vague, and thath e is ent i t l ed t o be i nf or m ed of the “unl aw f

ul act i vi ty”
w h ich a ll eg ed ly p rod u ce d th e fun d s he i s acc u sed of l au n d ering
. W e ag ree . W e find T ran ’s i nd ict m en t t o b e no m ore i nform at i ve than a h yp othet i cal i nd i ct m ent w hich charges a def endantw i th e nt er i ng a c ons pi r acy t o c om m i t“s om e unl aw f ul act i vi ty. ” I n the C ode, the L egi s l atur e def

i ned the t erm “unl aw f

ul act i vi ty” as any act i vi ty thatcons t i tut es a f el ony underf eder al orst at e l aw . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 23- 101( 3) ( a) ( R ev. 2006). T hus , us i ng t he 3 def i ni t i on i n thats t atut e, T r an’ s i ndi ctm entaver s t hathe knew the money he w as tr ans por t i ng re p re se n ted th e p ro c e e d s o f so m e f e lo n y u n d e r fe d e ra l o r sta te la w . F o rc in g d e fe n d a n ts

### 11

in d icte d fo r m o n e y lau n d e rin g to trial w ith o u t first fa irly in fo rm in g th e m o f th e s p e c if ic “unl aw f ul act i vi ty” al l eged, cons t i tut es a cl eardepr i vat i on of the r i gh t s guar ant eed by the Fi f th and Si xth A m endment s t o the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on; A r t i cl e 3, Sect i on 26 of the M issi ssipp i C o n sti tuti o n ; an d R u le 7.06 of th e U n if o rm R u les of C ir cu itan d C o u n ty C o u rt Pr act i ce. ¶ 2 4 . M o re o v e r, o n ly a g ra n d ju ry c a n s p e c ify th e c rim e a d e fe n d a n t is c h a rg e d w ith
c o m m itt in g . “T h e v e ry p u rp o se o f th e re q u ire m e n t th a t a m a n b e in d icte d b y g ra n d ju ry is t o l i m i thi s j eopar dy t o of f ens es char ged by a gr ou p of hi s f el l ow ci t i zens act i ng i ndepende nt l y of

ei therpros ecut i ng att orney orj udge. ” Stir one v. U nited States , 36 1 U. S. 212, 218, 80 S. C t . 270, 4 L . E d. 2d 252 ( 1960)
. T he i ndi ctm ent ’ s purpos e i s t o not i f y t he def endantof the cha r ges he mustm eeta nd pr ovi de enough det ai l s o thatthe def endantm ay p le a d d o u b le je o p a rd y in a fu tu re p ro s e c u tio n b a s e d o n th e sa m e s e t o f e v e n ts . U nited States
v. G r een , 964 F. 2d 365, 372 ( 5th C i r . 1992)
. T hi s Courtha s he l d, “ I f the gr and j ury di d not know w hatc r i m e they w er e char gi ng a gai ns tthe def endant , how coul d the def endantknow the natur e of

the cr i m e w i th w hi ch he i s char ged?” B ru m fie ld , 206 M i s s . at507. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tnot ed: A cry p ti c fo rm o f i n d ictm en t i n ca ses [w h ere g u il t dep en d s u p o n a sp e c ific i dent i f i cat i on of

f act ] r equi r es the def

endantt o go t o tr i al w i th the chi ef i s s ue undef i ned .
. . . T o al l ow t he pr os ecut or , orthe co urt , t o m ake a s ubs equent gues s as t o w hatw as i n t he mi nds of the gr and j ury atthe t i m e they r eturned the i ndi ctm entw oul d depr i ve the def endantof a ba si c pr ot ect i on w hi ch the g u a ran ty o f th e interv en ti o n o f a g ran d jury w as d esig n ed to se cu re. Fo r a def endantcoul d t hen be convi ct ed on the bas i s of f actnotf ound by, and p e rh a p s n o te v e n p r e s e n t e d t o , th e g r a n d j u ry wh i c h i n d i c t e d h i m. R uss el l v. U nited States , 3 6 9 U .S . 7 4 9 , 7 6 6 , 8 L . E d . 2 d 2 4 0 , 8 2 S . C t. 1 0 3 8 (1 9 6 2 ).Th e p ertinent l an gu ag e o f t hefe de ralstatut e is as f

oll ow s: 4 Whoever transports, tr ansmits, or transfers, orattempts to trans port , tr an smit, or transfer a monetary instrument orfunds from a place in the United St ates to or through a plac e outside the United State s or to a pla ce i n the United Stat es from or through a plac e outs ide the Unite d States, knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation repr esent the pr oceeds of some form of unlawful activi ty and

kn ow ingthat su chtrans po rtatio n, trans miss ion , o r tran sf er i s d esi gn ed in whole or in

p art toc on ceal o r disguis e then ature, th e loc ati on , thes ource , the ownership, or the control of the pr oceeds of specified unlawful activity. 

### 12 ¶2 5. The a r gu ment s f orr e qu i r i ng a s pe c i f

i c a l l e ga t i on o f

the u nd e r l yi ng c r i me i n an i ndi ctm entf

orm oney l aunder i ng ar e the s ame as forb ur gl ary: t o pr ovi de s uf f i ci entnot i ce t o d efendan t s of the charges b rough tag ai nstthem , and t o en sure cl ari ty an d a lack of abuse by prosecutor s i n g rand j ury p roceedings. A bsent a r equ i rem ent that pr osecutors sp e c ify t he under l yi ng of

f ens e, def endant s a r e nota f

f or ded the pr ocedur al r i ghtof i ndi ctm entby gr and j ury becaus e t her e i s no cr i m e of m oney l aunder i ng w i thoutthe “s peci f i ed unl aw f

ul act i vi ty” f r om w hi ch the pr ocee ds s t em. I ndeed, the s t atut e mandat es thatthe “unl aw f ul act i vi t y” be “sp ec if ied.” T o sp ec if

y is de fi n ed as, “to m en ti o n o r n am e in a sp ec if ic or e x p li citm an n er: tel l or stat e p rec isel y o r i n d etail
. ” W eb ster’s T h ir d N ew Int’l D ict ion ary 2 1 8 7 (3d ed
. 1 9 8 6 ). C l ear l y, the l anguage of the s t atut e r equi r es thatan under l yi ng cr i m e b e n am ed i n t he i ndi ctm entof

a s t at e money l aunder i ng char ge.

I V. ¶26. M or eover , w e al s o f i nd the f eder al m oney l aunder i ng st atut e, and i t s i nt erpr et at i on by th e fe d e ra l co u rts, to b e h e lp fu l. T h e lan g u a g e o f th e fe d e ra l m o n e y lau n d e ri n g s ta tu te is
s ubs t ant i a l l y i de nt i c a l t o the pr ov i s i on s i n q ue s t i on he r e . U nl i ke ou rs t a tut e , the f e der al 418 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(I ).

Som e examples of such specific crimes are, inter a lia , any Racketeeri ng Influenced and 5 Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) vi olation; the manufacture, importation, sale ordistri bution of a controll ed substance; murder, ki dn ap ing, r obbery, extort ion, destruc tion of property by means of explo sio n or

f ire , o r a c rim e o f v io len c e ; f

ra u d b yo r ag a in s t a

f o re ignb ank ; b rib e ry

o f ap u b li c official, or the misappropri ation, theft, orembezzlem ent of public fun ds by or for the benefit of a public official. 

### 13 s t atut e, i n anothers ubs ect i on, pr ovi des a l i s tof num er ous cr i m es w hi ch w oul d qual i f y as “s peci f i ed unl aw f

ul act i vi ty” under l yi ng a m oney l aunder i ng c har ge. I ndi ctm ent s char gi ng p erso n s u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 6 m u st alle g e the sp ec if ic pre d icate crim e fo u n d u n d er § 1956( c) ( 7) i n or dert o be uphel d. “The l anguage of the st at ute, i n conj unct i on w i t h the 5 def i ni t i ons pr ovi ded i n 18 U . S. C . § 1956( c) i ndi cat es thatC ongr es s i nt ended t o cr i m i nal i ze a br oad arr ay of

transact i ons des i gned t o f aci l i t at e numer ous f

eder al cr i m es . . . ” U

ni ted State s v. LeBlanc , 2 4 F . 3 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 6 (1st C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ). ¶27. C ons t i tut i onal l y s peaki ng, the purpos e of i dent i f yi ng the pr e di c a t e c r i me i n the f eder al
m oney l aunder i ng indi ct m enti s t o s uf f i ci ent l y putthe def

endanton not i ce t o pr epar e a d e fe n s e , a n d fo r d o u b le je o p a rd y p u rp o s e s . U n ited S tates v. L in eberry , 185 Fed. A pp’ x. 366, 370 ( 5th Ci r . 2006)
. “To be s uf f i ci ent , a n i ndi ctm entne eds onl y t o a l l ege each essent i al el ementof

the of f ens e cha r ged s o as t o enabl e t he acc us ed t o pr epar e hi s def ens e and t o al l ow the ac cus ed t o i nvoke the doub l e j eopar dy cl aus e i n any s ubs equentpr ocee di ng. ” U ni ted States v. W

ebb , 7 4 7 F .2 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ), c e r t . deni ed , 4 6 9 U .S . 1 2 2 6 , 1 0 5 S . C t. 1222, 84 L . E d. 2d 362 (1985). I n L in eberry , the def endantar gued thatthe f ol l ow i ng i ndi ctm entunder18 U . S. C . § 1956 w as i nadequa t e not i ce of the under l yi ng char ge:

### 14

[ L i neberr y] knew the proper ty i nvol ved i n the f i nanci al tr ans act i ons r epr es ent ed the pr ocee ds of s om e f or m o f unl aw f ul act i vi ty, namel y, prost i tuti on i n v i olat i on of the law s of the S t at e of T exas. I d. at369. T he courthel d thatthe i ndi ctm entgave Li neberry s uf f i ci entnot i ce due t o t he
re fe re n c e to th e T e x a s s ta te p ro stitu tio n c h a rg e s w h ich a llo w e d h im to p re p a re a n a m p le d e fe n s e o n th a t b a s is
. L in eberry , 185 Fed. A pp’ x. at371. ¶28. I n U

ni ted States v. K

now les , a dis tr i ctcourtquas hed the i ndi ctm entbas ed on 18 U . S. C . § 1956 becaus e t he under l yi ng cr i m e, “drug t r af f i cki ng, ” di d notunambi guous l y s et outthe el ement s of

the of f ens e oral l ege upon w hi ch § 1956( c) ( 7) cr i m e the money la u n d e ri n g c h a rg e w a s p re m is e d
. K now les , 2 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 3 5 , 1 1 4 0 (E
. D . W is. 1 9 9 8 ). In d ism issing th e ind ictm en t, th e co u rtno ted tha t “[b]eca u se the cu rren t ind ictm en t is
a m b ig u o u s , K n o w le s c o u ld n o t r e ly o n th e in d ic tm e n t to p ro te c t h is d o u b le je o p a rd y ri g h ts .” I d . at11 41 . F urtherm ore, “neither the co urtno r the d efendan tshou l d be requ i red t o g uess co n ce rnin g the a ll eg ed u n d erlying o ffen se th at co n sti tutes th e ‘sp ec if ied u n law ful ac ti v ity . ’” I d. ¶2 9 . T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls reli ed o n the F if th C ir cu itca se o f U

nited States v. L oe to ru le th a t T ra n ’s in d ic tm e n t w a s s u ff ic ie n t. L oe , 248 F. 3d 449 ( 5th Ci r . 2001). I n L oe , t he d e fe n d a n ts w e re in d icte d fo r c o n sp ira c y , m o n e y lau n d e rin g , a n d w ire , m a il an d tax fra u d in
connec t i on w i th f

r audul entre por t s m ade t o t hei ri ns ur ance carr i eras w el l as t o the I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce. Per t i nenther e, L oe ar gued thatthe money l aunder i ng i ndi ctm ent , w hi ch al l eges as the under l yi ng cr i m e cons pi r acy t o comm i tm ai l and w i r e f r aud, w as i ns uf

f i ci ent b ec au se itd id n o t al lege from w h ich s p ec if ic ac t of m ail o r w ir e frau d the fu n d s w ere

### 15

d erive d
. T h e F if

th C ir cu itdism issed th eir arg u m en ts, ho lding th at th e u n d erlying ac ts w ere c le a rl y id e n tif

ie d to th e ju ry . I

d . at468. ¶30. H ow ever , the C our tof A ppeal s ’ m aj or i ty m i s i nt erpr et ed t he f act s and quot ed the f o l l o wi n g l a n g u a g e f

r o m L oe to su p p o rt its a p p ro v a l o f T ra n ’s in d ictm e n t: T h is argu m en t m isi n terprets the term , “sp ec if ic un law ful a cti v ity . ” T h is t erm does noti m pl y thatthe i ndi ctm entm us tl i s ta s peci f i c unl aw f

ul actthati s the s our ce of

the money. I ns t ead, the s t atut e p r opos es “s peci f i ed unl aw f

ul act i vi ty” as a t erm of

art . A s peci f

i ed unl aw f

ul act i vi ty i s one of

a s etof fe d e ra l cr im e s liste d in 1 8 U .S .C .A . § 1 9 5 6 (c )( 7 ). S e c tio n 1 9 5 7 m e re ly requi res m oney t o be der i ved f r om a part i cul ars etof

f eder al cr i m es . I tdoes notr equi r e the i ndi ctm entt o s peci f y w hi ch unl aw ful act i vi ty gener at ed the f unds i n ques t i on. I n any ca s e, w e not e thatthe money l aunderi ng co un t s of the i ndi ctm enti ncl uded al l egat i ons s uf f i ci entt o ( 1) enumer at e ea ch el ement of the of f ens e; ( 2) pr ovi de A ppel l ant s w i th not i ce of the pr eci s e transact i ons f orw hi ch they w er e bei ng pr os ecut ed; and ( 3) pr eventf utur e pr os ecut i ons f

or th e sa m e o ffe n se . T h u s, th e in d ictm e n t w a s s u ffic ien t. T r an , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S at*29 ( ci t i ng L o e, 2 4 8 F . 3 d at 46 8 ). ¶31. I n i t s r el i ance on L oe , the C our tof A ppeal s f

ocus ed on the l anguage , “[ Sect i on 1957] does notr equi r e the i ndi ctm entt o s peci f y w hi ch unl aw f

ul act i vi ty . . . , ”t o concl ude that , f or pr os ecut i ons underthe federa l m oney l aunder i ng s t atut e, the Fi f th C i r cui tr equi r es an i ndi ctm ent t o al l ege no mor e than “s peci f i ed unl aw f

ul act i vi ty. ” W e f

i nd the C our tof A p p ea ls’ interpre tat ion o f L oe i s f l aw ed f ortw o r eas ons , both of

w hi ch ar e r evea l ed i n t he p a r a g r a p h f

r o m L oe w hi ch i m m edi at el y pr ece des the l anguag e quot ed by the C our tof A pp eal s: E ach of the money l aunder i ng count s r ef err ed t o one of

the count s al l egi ng cons pi r acy t o comm i tm ai l and w i r e f r aud. T he cons pi r acy count s l i s t ed s ever al al l eged a ct s of

m ai l and w i r e f

r aud
. [Th e d ef

endant ] not es thatthe m o n e y la u n d e rin g c o u n ts o f th e in d ictm e n t d id n o t sp e c ify w h ich a c ts o f m a il o r w ire fra u d w a s th e so u rc e o f th e fu n d s. C o n se q u e n tly , [th e d e fe n d a n t]

### 16

ar gues thatthe i ndi ctm enta l l ow ed f ora non- unani m ous j ury ver di ctr egar di ng w hi ch ac tof

f r aud w as the s our ce of

the money. L oe , 248 F. 3d at468. ¶32. Fi r s t , unl i ke the ca s e bef or e us t oday, the i ndi ctm enti n L oe f ul l y i nf or m ed the def endantof

the part i cularcri m e the pr os ecut i on al l eged pr oduced the money. T he def endanti n L oe di d noteven a r gue thatthe i ndi ctm entf ai l ed t o di s cl os e the under l yi ng cr i m e. A s s t at ed i n L oe , “E a c h o f th e m o n e y lau n d e rin g c o u n ts re fe rre d to o n e o f th e c o u n ts al l egi ng cons

pi r acy to com m i tm ai land w i r e f r aud
. ” I d. (em ph asi s added)
. I n f act , the i ndi ctm enti n L oe not only speci f i ed the under l yi ng cr i m e, buti tf ur thers peci f

i ed var i ous al l eged a ct s w hi ch cons t i tut ed mai l and w i re f raud. T he Fi f

th C i r cui thel d onl y thatt he
s peci fi c act s w hi ch cons t i tut ed the mai l and w i r e f r aud nee d notbe di s cl os ed i n t he in d ictm e n t. ¶33. Second, the i s s ue r ai s ed by the def endanti n L oe w as very di f f er entf r om the i s s ue bef or e thi s C our t . I n L oe , th e d e fe n d a n t a rg u e d th a t, b e c a u se th e re w e re se v e ra l sp e c ific a c ts of w i r e a nd mai l f

r a ud a l l e ge d, “ the i nd i c t menta l l owed f ora no n- un a ni mous j ury v e r di ct
r egar di ng w hi ch ac tof

f r aud w as the s our ce of

the money. ” I

d . ¶34. B y cont r as t , T r an’ s i ndi ctm enti nf or m s hi m of

nei therthe s peci f

i c ac t s w hi ch make up t he cri m e, n or t he natur e of the cr i m e i t s el f

. T hus , w e f

i nd L oe i nap po si t e t o the case bef or e us t oday. ¶35. A l though M i ssi ssi ppi has notcodi f i ed w hi ch s peci f

i c cr i m es qual i f

y as “unl aw f

ul
a c tiv ity ” u n d e r th e m o n e y la u n d e rin g s tatu te, th e s a m e c o n c e rn s re g a rd in g n o tice a n d d o u b le jeo p a rd y a p p ly . D e fe n d a n ts c h a rg e d w ith v io la tio n o f M iss iss ip p i’s m o n e y lau n d e rin g sta tu te

### 17

are ent i t l ed to noti ce of the spec i fi c il lega l ac t i vity all eged by the S t at e, the sam e as tho se i ndi ct ed underthe f

eder al s t atut e. Pl aci ng a re as onabl e cons truct i on on t he phr as e, “s peci f i ed unl aw f ul act i vi ty, ” thi s C our tconcl udes thatan i ndi ctm entf orm oney l aunder i ng underthe M i s s i s s i ppi s t atut e r equi r es an af f i r m at i ve di s cl os ur e of

the under l yi ng of

f ens e. I ndeed, t he St at e r ecogni zed that , t o convi ctT ran an d N guyen of m oney l aunder i ng, i thad the bur den t o pr ove thata pr edi cat e cr i m e – her e, drug tr af f i cki ng – w as comm i t t ed. I V. ¶36. W e f

i nd thatT r an’ s i ndi ctm entw as def ect i ve. H ow ever , ouri nqui ry does notend he r e . Fe w , i f

a ny , pr os e c ut i on s ha ve be e n p e r f e c t , a nd the r e c a n b e e rr or s – e ve n e rr or s of
cons t i tut i onal pr oport i ons – w hi ch do notr equi r e r ever s al of a convi ct i on. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed that“mostcons t i tut i onal err or s can be harm l es s . ” Ari z ona
v. Fu lm in a n te , 499 U . S. 279, 306, 111 S. C t . 1 24 6, 1 13 L . E d. 2d 302 ( 1991)
. T r i al and
a p p e llate c o u rts h a v e th e d u ty to b e fa ir, n o t o n ly to th e d e fe n d a n t, b u t to th e S tate a s w e ll. H arm l es s - err oranal ys i s i s of t en nece ssary t o pr eventunf ai rpr ej udi ce t o the St at e, and the St at e i s cert ai nl y pr ej udi ced w here co nv i ct i ons ar e r ever s ed bas ed on err or s w hi ch do not
a ff e c t th e s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts o f t h e p a rt ie s . Ch a p m a n v. Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U. S. 18 , 22 , 87 S. C t. 8 2 4 , 1 7 L . E d . 2 d 7 0 5 (1 9 6 7 ); B y n u m v. S ta te , 9 2 9 S o . 2 d 3 1 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ); Jas perv. S ta te , 8 7 1 S o . 2 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 1 -3 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); B u tlerv. S ta te , 2 1 7 S o . 2 d 3 , 6 (M iss. 1 9 6 8 ). ¶37 . H arm l ess- err ors ar e on l y those “w hich i n the sett i ng of a part icular c ase are s o uni m por t antand i ns i gni f i cantthatthey may, cons i s t entw i th the Feder al C ons t i tut i on, be d e e m e d h a rm le s s , n o t r e q u ir in g th e a u to m a tic re v e rs a l o f t h e c o n v ic tio n . Chapm an , 386 U . S. at22. In c o n d u c tin g h a rm les s e rro r a n a ly sis , this C o u rt h a s th e p o w e r a n d d u ty to

### 18

re v ie w th e re c o rd d e n o v o in o rd e r t o d e te rm in e th e e rr o r’ s e ff e c t. F u lm in a n te , 499 U . S. at 2 9 5 . H arm less erro r m ay ap p ly to c ase s w h ere an a cc u sed ’s co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts w ere
v io la te d
. Chapm an , 386 U . S. at22. ¶ 3 8 . T h e re w a s a tim e in o u r h isto ry w h e n th e S ta te p ro v id e d c rim in a l d e fe n d a n ts w ith vi r tual l y no di s covery. D ef endant s of

t en pr ocee ded t o tr i al w i th l i t t l e more i nf or m at i on t han th a t co n tain e d in th e in d ictm e n t. U n d e r su c h c irc u m sta n c e s, th e fa ilu re o f a n in d ictm e n t to di s cl os e the “i l l egal a ct i vi ty” w oul d a l m os tc ert ai nl y be f at al t o the S t at e’s pr os ecut i on. H o w ev er, ou r crim inal justi ce sy stem h as e v o lved to the p o int th at t o d ay ’s d e fe n d a n ts are pr ovi ded ea r l y i n the pr os ecut i on w i th a gr eatdeal of i nf or m at i on. T he U ni f

or m R ul es of C i r cui tand C ounty C our tPr act i ce r equi r e the pr os ecut i on t o pr ovi de t o the def endant
num er ous cat egor i es of

document s and i nf

or m at i on. U . R . C . C . C . 9. 04. B ear i ng thi s i n m i nd,
w e m u st carefu ll y ex am ine th e re co rd to d eterm ine w h ethe r th ere w as a v iolati o n o f T ran ’s
cons t i tut i onal guar ant ee of f ai rnot i ce a nd oppor tuni ty t o pr epar e a de f ens e. I V. ¶3 9 . In th e initi al plea d ing s fi led in the c ivil forfeitu re a cti o n , the R an k in C o u n ty S h eriff’s D epart m entm ade i t s cl ai m pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 41- 29- 153( R ev. 2 0 0 5 ), m o re c o m m o n ly k n o w n as the M issi ssipp i C o n tr o ll ed S u b stan ce s A ct. A ft er th e c o u rt ent er ed a de f

aul tj udgm enton J anuary 28, 2003, T r an f i l ed a mot i on f

orr el i ef f r om the def aul t , cl ai m i ng the money f ound i n the f

al s e gas t ank w as not t he procee ds of drug tra ffic k in g a s a lleg e d b y the S h e riff, b u t ra th e r, w a s m o n e y w h ich b e lo n g e d to h im a n d h is f ami l y. T he Sher i f

f’ s r es pons e t o T r an’ s m ot i on (w hi ch w as provi ded t o T r an) agai n averr ed thatthe money w as s ubj ectt o s ei zur e and f orf ei ture ba s ed on M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed

### 19

Sect i on 41- 29- 153, w hi ch ho l ds t hatal l pr operty r es ul t i ng f r om the s al e of

contr ol l ed
s ubs t ance s i s s ubj ectt o f or f ei tur e. T hus , bas ed on t he ci vi l for f ei tur e act i on w hi ch w as f i l ed p rio r to T ra n ’s in d ictm e n t, he w a s c lea rly in fo rm e d th a t th e S h e riff’s D ep artm e n t d e e m e d th is
m on ey the proceed s of drug traf fi cking acti vit i es. ¶4 0 . A d d it ion all y , T ran a d m itt e d in an affidav ito n Ju ly 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 , that “[t ] h e o ffi ce rs a tte m p te d d u ri n g [t h e in te rr o g a tio n ] to g e t m e to s a y th e m o n e y w a s u s e d fo r d ru g p u rp o s e s .” A nd then, on N ovember19, 2003, T r an f i l ed a M ot i on t o S uppr es s and D i s m i s s , i n w hi ch he
as s ert ed thatthe ca s h w as sei zed underthe pr ovi s i ons of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 4 9
- 2 1 -1 0 1 , et

s eq. , “ e ve n tho ug h the r e wer e n o drug s l oc a t e d a nd n o i nd i vi du a l s i n t he
v eh icl e w ere ch arg ed for a n y il lega l acti o n inclu d ing a traffi c ti ck et. ” (E m p h asis o ri g inal). A l s o, i n hi s M ot i on t o D i s m i s s f orL ack of

a C ons t i tut i onal Speedy Tri al f i l ed on N ovember 19, 2003, T r an ac know l edged thatthe ca s h w as s ei zed unde rthe M i s s i s s i ppi C ontr ol l ed S u b sta n c e s A c t. ¶4 1 . D u ri n g a su p p ression h ea ri n g o n Jan u ary 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , the S tat e ind icated that L arry D avi ds on w oul d be ca l l ed as an expe r ti n nar cot i cs and the pr ocee ds of drug tr af

f i cki ng. W hen as ked i f

the St at e had pr ovi ded al l i nf or m at i on to t he def

ens e, the di s tr i ctatt or ney a n s we r e d , “ Ye s s i r , I h a v e . I h a v e d i v u l g e d i tt o h i m a n d s e n tt h e [ c u rr i c u l u m v i t a e ] t o h i m, and I pr ovi ded ev erythi ng w e have thatw as r eques t ed. ” A l though the r ecor d i s uncl earas t o w hen the de fense w as provi ded w i th the i nform at i on regar ding t he S t at e’s exp ertw i t ness, T r an made no obj ect i on thathe had notr ece i ved f ai rnot i ce, nordi d he compl ai n thathe had notbeen pr ovi ded ade quat e t i m e t o pr epar e a de f ens e.

### 20

¶42. B as ed on the r ecor d bef or e us, w e fi nd the omi s s i on of the “s peci f

i ed unl aw f

ul
a c tiv ity ” in th e in d ictm e n t to b e h a rm les s e rro r w h ich d id n o t re n d e r th e trial fu n d a m e n tally unf ai r . T he def

ens e had ampl e not i ce thatthe cha r ge of m oney l aunder i ng w as bas ed on the St at e’ s cl ai m thatthe money w as the pr oductof drug tr af

f i cki ng. ¶43. B y t oday’ s deci s i on, w e do notw i s h t o di m i ni s h the i m por t ance of the i nf ormat i on
r equi r ed t o be i ncl uded i n an i ndi ctm ent . I ndeed, w er e i tnotf orthe abunda nce of

evi dence in the rec o rd tha t T ra n h a d fair n o tice an d an o p p o rtu n ity to p re p a re a d e fe n s e , h is
co n sti tuti o n all y -i n fi rm ind ictm en t w o u ld req u ir e tha t w e re v erse his co n v ict ion
. H o w ev er, fo r th e re a so n s s tate d , w e fin d th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r to b e w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶4 4 . W e fin d th a t th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls co rrectl y rev erse d an d ren d ere d N g u y en ’s convi ct i on. W e f

i nd T r an’ s i ndi ct m ent w as de f ect i ve f orf ai l ur e t o s peci f

y the unl aw f

ul
ac ti v ity , b u t w e fu rth er find the in d ictm en t’ s d efe ct w as h arm less erro r. ¶45. W e emphas i ze thatan i ndi ctm entchar gi ng a per s on w i th m oney l aunder i ng under M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 9 7 -23 -10 1 (1)(b )(i i) (1)(R ev . 2 0 0 6), is r eq u ir ed to sp ec if y th e “ u n la w fu l a c ti v it y ” fr o m w h ic h th e ille g a l p ro c e e d s a re a lle g e d to h a v e d e ri v e d . W e f ur therhol d t hat vi olat i on of thi s r equi r ementm ay be c ur ed onl y w her e, as her e, t he pr os ecut i on demo nst r at es thati totherw i s e pr ovi ded t i m el y not i ce t o the def endantof

t he
a lleg e d ill e g a l ac tiv ity , a n d th a t th e n o tice c lea rly a n d su ffic ien tly p ro v id e d th e d e fe n d a n t a f ai roppor tuni ty t o pr epar e a de f ens e t o the cha r ges . Pr os ecut or s w i s hi ng t o avoi d the bur den of s how i ng not i ce apartf r om the i ndi ctm ent , and the r i s k thatsuch n oti ce w i l l be f ound in a d e q u a te, s h o u ld c a re fu lly sp e c ify th e u n law fu l ac tiv ity in th e in d ictm e n t.

### 21

¶4 6 . W e find all o ther a ssign m en ts of erro r t o b e m erit less, an d w e a ffi rm the ju ry’s di s pos i t i on of

T r an’ s cas e. ¶ 4 7 . THE J UDG M ENT OF THE CO URT O F APPE AL S I S AFF I RM ED. AS T O CAS E # 2 0 0 4 - CT - 0 0 3 6 8 - S CT: CONVI CT I ON OF M ONEY LA UNDE RI NG AND SENTE NC E O F TW EN TY ( 2 0 ) YE AR S I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S, A F F I R M E D . A S T O C A SE # 2004- C T - 00369- S C T : T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E R A N K IN C O U N T Y C IR C U IT C O U R T IS R E V E R S E D A N D R E N D E R E D . S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., C A R L S O N , G R A V E S A N D L A M A R , J J ., CO NCU R. RAN DO LPH, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART. DI AZ , P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. EA S LE Y, J . , CONCURS I N P ART AND DI S S ENTS I N PART W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY RAN DO LPH, J . ; S M I TH, C. J . , J OI NS I N PART. DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 4 8 . O u r sta te a n d fe d e ra l co n stitu tio n s g u a ra n tee c rim in a l d e fe n d a n ts th e sp e c ific r ig h t “ to b e in fo rm e d o f th e n a tu re a n d c a u se o f th e a c c u sa tio n .” U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . V I; M iss . C o n st.
art . 3, § 26. B y l ooki ng beyond the f ace of the i ndi ctm ent , the maj or i ty cr eat es a “good enough” s t andar d w her e m er e cons truct i ve know l edge s uf f i ces . T hi s i nt erpr et at i on betr ays the lett er a n d s p irit o f th e law
. B ec au se th is j u d ici al co n stru cti o n str ips o u r cit izen s o f a fu n d a m e n tal c o n stitu tio n a l g u a ra n tee , I m u st d iss e n t. ¶49. I compl et el y agr ee thatthe i ndi ctm entw as de f ect i ve beca us e i tom i t t ed an e s s ent i al el ementof

the cr i m e. H ow ever , contr ary t o the maj or i ty’ s hol di ng, “[ a] def endant ’ s not i ce o f a n e lem e n t n o t a lleg e d in a n in d ictm e n t does notcur e an i ns uf f i ci enti ndi ctm ent . ” U

ni ted S tates v. Hen ry , 288 F. 3d 657, 661 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng U nited States v. Cabr er a- T er an , 168 F. 3d 141, 143 ( 5th C i r . 1999) ) ( emphasi s s uppl i ed)
. C our t s do notl ook be yond the f ace of the i ndi ctm entt o i nf

ercons truct i ve know l edge, beca us e “[ t ] he s uf f i ci ency of

a cr i m i nalU n fo rt u n a te ly , th e d e fe n s e fa ile d to ra is e th is is s u e in th e a p p e a l. 6 

### 22 i ndi ctm enti s det erm i ned f r om i t s f ace . ” U nited States v. Cr it

z er , 9 5 1 F .2 d 3 0 6 , 3 0 7 (1 1 th C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ) (em p h a sis su p p li ed ). T h ere fore , b y loo k ing to ex tr insic ev iden ce o f T ran ’s know l edge of

the cr i m e cha r ged, the maj ori t y i s s ubvert i ng the Si xth A m endmentof t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and Sect i on 26 of ours t at e’ s bi l l of

ri gh t s. U . S. C ons t . amend. V I; M is s . C o n s t. a rt . 3 , § 2 6 . ¶5 0. U ndert he maj or i ty’ s n e w s t a nd a r d, a ny d e f e c ti n the i nd i c t ment can be cur ed by sh o w in g th a t th e d e fe n d a n t s hould have know n o f th e ch a rg e s a g a in st h im
. It is d iffic u lt t o i m agi ne a s i tuat i on w her e the s t at e w i l l notbe abl e t o s how t hat t he defe ndanthad
c o n s tru c tiv e k n o w le d g e o f t h e c h a rg e s a g a in s t h im
. ¶5 1 . F u rth e rm o re , e v en if the d eficien cy d o es n o t dem an d au tom ati c re v ersa l, the sta te
neverhad t o prove t he m i s s i ng ess ent i al el ementof the cr i m e bec aus e the j ury i ns truct i ons cont ai ned the s ame f

at al de f ecta s the i ndi ctm ent . T he j ury w as i ns truct ed thati tcoul d f i nd T ra n g u ilty o f m o n e y la u n d e ri n g if th e p ro c e e d s w e re fr o m “ s o m e fo rm o f u n la w fu l a c tiv ity .” T h e r e f o r e , i td o e s n o tma t t e rth a tT r a n h a d a f a i ro p p o r tu n i ty t o p r e p a r e a d e f e n s e . No d efe n se w o u ld h av e h elpe d T ran if the s tat e w as n ev er req u ir ed to p rov e the p roc ee d s w ere f r om drug tr af

f i cki ng. 6 ¶52. Fi nal l y, even i f the j ury w as pr oper l y i ns truct ed, the r ecor d cont ai ns no evi dence t hat T r an knew of

any under l yi ng cr i m e. T he evi dence off er ed by the s t at e cons i s t ed of the t es t i m ony of

tw o w i tnes s es of

fer i ng m er e gues s es as t o the or i gi n of the money. A dd i t i on al l y, no con necti on w as everest abli shed betw een T ran and kn ow n d rug t raf fi ckers.

### 23

A ccor di ngl y, the def

ect i ve i ndi ctm enti n thi s cas e w as nevercur ed, and cannotby any str et ch
o f t h e im a g in a tio n b e c o n s id e re d h a rm le s s e rr o r. ¶53 . T oday’ s opi ni on thr eat ens t o turn ou r court s i nto m od ern- day S t ar C ham bers, cra cki ng the very f

oundat i on o f t he A m er i can c r i m i nal j us t i ce s ys t em. B eca us e w e ar e pr ohi bi t ed f r om cons i der i ng extri nsi c ev i dence of not i ce, the i ndi ctm enti s notharm l es s err or , and I
w oul d r ever s e.

EAS LEY, J UST I CE, CO NCU RRI NG I N PART A ND D I S S ENTI NG I N PART: ¶54. I f ul l y concur w i th the m aj or i ty’ s hol di ng i n thi s cas e as t o the af f i r m ance of

Q uang T h an h T ran ’s (T ran ’s) co n v ict ion o f m o n ey laun d ering an d sen tenc e to se rve tw en ty y ea rs in th e c u sto d y o f th e M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n . A s to T ra n , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d e ter m in e d th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s su ffic ien t to d e m o n stra te th a t th e m o n e y fo u n d h id d e n in the g as t ank w as the p roceeds of unlaw ful act i vity. T he C ou rtof A pp eal s f ou nd as f oll ow s: I n U . S. v. Carr , 25 F . 3d 1194 ( 3d C i r . 1994), t he T hi r d C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s consi der ed w hetherthe f eder al governm entpr es ent ed s uf f i ci ent evi dence t o s us t ai n a convi ct i on f oratt empt ed mo ney la under i ng under18 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 6 (a)(2)(B )(i ) - th e fe d era l cou n terpa rtto 9 7 -23 -10 1 (1)(b )(i i) (1). In c o n sid e rin g w h ethe r th e g o v ern m en t prese n ted s u ffi cien t evid en ce to su sta in i t s b urden of

pr oof underthe f

i r s ts ci ent erel ement , C arrf ound s uf f i ci ent evi dence w her e: ( a) the j ury hear d t es t i m ony thatthe def endantt ook num er ous tr i ps t o the C ayman I s l ands a nd Col om bi a j us taf t ercas h excha nges betw een a co- cons pi r at orand a c ooper at i ve governm ent w i tnes s ; ( b) the def endant admi t t ed t o know i ng a nd f r equent l y tr avel i ng w i th the r i ngl eade rof the money l aunder i ng cons pi r acy; ( c) the j ury hear d t es t i m ony aboutan occ as i on w hen the def endantl i ed t o pas s por tof f i ci al s i n or dert o obt ai n a new pas s por tw hi ch w o u ld n o t co n ta in n u m e ro u s s tam p s s h o w in g v isits o f sh o rt d u ra tio n to C o lo m b ia; (d ) e v id e n c e sh o w e d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t li e d to C u sto m s o ffic ials abouthow he ob t ai ned a bl ue bag thatcont ai ned $180, 000 i n $100 bi l l s ; ( e) tap e d p h o n e c o n v e rsa tio n s b o th b e fo re a n d a fte r th e d e fe n d a n t w a s c a u g h t w ith the money i ndi cat ed thatthe def endantknew t he m oney he w as carryi ng had

### 24

been de r i ved f

r om i l l egal tr ans act i ons ; a nd ( f ) pos i t i ve al ert s by drug s ni f f i ng do gs ind icated thatm uch of the m on ey w as l i kely used in drug t ransact i on s. Id . at1206- 07. H e r e , the r e i s much l e s s e vi de nc e tha n i n Carr . S til l, th e ju ry c o u ld reas on ably con cl ud e that Tran init ial ly d en ied o w n ersh ip o f th e m o n ey b ecau se he knew i tre pr es ent ed t he pr ocee ds of nar cot i cs tr af

f i cki ng. A gentD avi ds on tes tified re g a rd in g c o m m o n m e th o d s o f w ra p p in g m o n e y e x c h a n g e d in nar cot i cs tr ans act i ons a nd the purpose of w r appi ng i ta s s uch – t o m i ni m i ze the s centof the money and i ncr eas e the l i kel i hood of evadi ng captur e. T he def endanti n U

n itedS ta tes v. G a llo , 927 F. 2d 815 ( 5th C i r . 1991) w as arr es t ed w hi l e tr ans por t i ng $299, 985 i n hi s car . T o pr ove thatthe def endanti n G a llo knew the money r epr es ent ed pr ocee ds of nar cot i cs tr af fi cki ng, the G overnm enti ntr oduced the f ol l ow i ng evi dence : ( a) the def endantr ece i ved a box of money f r om a s us pect ed nar cot i cs tr af f i ckerw ho had bee n underD E A s ur vei l l ance f ors ever al m onths ; (b) the s us pect ed n a rc o tics tra ffic k e r tra n sfe rre d th e b o x o f m o n e y sh o rtly a fte r h e m a d e a c a ll fr om a pu bli c ph on e, a com m on m et ho d d rug dea l ers use t o setup m eet i ng s; ( c) the box i n t he def

endant ' s carcont ai ned money w r apped i n f oi l ; ( d) on t he f oi l packe t s , the D E A f

ound f i ngerpr i nt s of

anotherknow n drug deal erunder D E A survei l l an ce ; (e) aft er the d efendan tw as arres t ed, he m ade tw o fal se e x c u l p a t o r y s t a t e me n t s a b o u tth e c a ra n d th e b o x o f mo n e y ; ( f

) o n th e s a me day t hat the s us pect ed nar cot i cs tr af f i ckergave the def

endantthe box of m o n e y , the su sp e c ted n a rc o tics tra ffic k e r g a v e $ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 th a t w a s w ra p p e d in f oi l and pl ace d i n a ca r dboar d box t o the know n drug de al er– i n excha nge f or 25 ki l ogr ams of

coca i ne; ( g) the tr ans f erbetw een the s us pect ed nar cot i cs tr af f i ckerand t he know n drug deal erw as very s i m i l art o the tr ans f erbetw een the s us pect ed nar cot i cs tr af f i ckerand t he def

endant ; (h) t he D E A s ear ched the know n drug de al er ' s hous e and f ound $ 1. 2 mi l l i on a nd a money cou nti ng m achine; and (i ) the D E A sear ched the suspe ct ed n arcot i cs traf fi cker' s hou se a n d f o u n d f if ty k ilo g ra m s o f c o c a in e . Id . at822. T he G a llo co u rth eld th a t, bas ed on the conc ert ed ac t i on a m ong the def endant s , the s us pect ed nar cot i cs traf fi cker, and the k no w n drug d eal er, com bined w i th the defendan t ' s f al se excul pat ory s t at ement s , the j ury coul d r eas onabl y i nf ert hatthe def

endant k n e w h e w a s tr a n s p o rt in g p ro c e e d s o f u n la w fu l a c tiv ity
. Id . L ike N guyen, T

r an deni ed know ledge of the tr i ple- w r apped m oney hidde n in t

he f al s e ga s tank. Howev e r

, Tr an r e c ante d hi

s initial de nial and la terfile da s w o rn a

ffida v it in c ide n t to th e fo rfe itu re p ro c e e din g. In h is s w or n af f idavit , Tran cl aim ed t he m oney r epr es ented his li f e s avings. T

r an lieda t lea st o n c e . E ith e r h e lie d w h e n h e sa id

th e m o n e

y did n o t b e lo n gto h im , o r h e liedw h e n h e sa id it did
. T h e ju ry c o u ld h a v e fo u n d th a t T ra n to ld

### 25

D e p u ty P e n n th a t th e m o n e y d id n o t b e lo n g to h im b e c a u se h e d id n o t w a n t to be conne ct ed t o i t . T hati s , T r an' s i ni t i al den i al coul d have be en f or excul pat ory r eas ons . T he St at e pr es ent ed evi dence thatthe m oney T r an c laim e d re p re se n ted h is life sa v in g s w a s w ra p p e d in a m a n n e r c o m m o n to m ethods us ed i n nar cot i cs tr af f i cki ng. T rue enough, T r an di d notconf es s by tes tify in g th a t th e trip le- w ra p p e d a n d c o n c e a led m o n e y w a s, in fa c t, th e fru its of s om e unl aw f

ul act i vi t y. H ow ever , w e ar e notcal l ed upon t o w ei gh the evi dence i n thi s c as e. R ather , w e mustdet erm i ne w hether , af t ervi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on, any r at i on al t r i erof fa c t co u ld h a v e fo u n d the es se n tial ele m e n ts o f th e crim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. B u sh , 89 5 S o . 2 d at[ 84 3] . V i ew i ng the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o ra b le to th e p ro se c u tio n , the ju ry h e a rd e v id e n c e th a t ( a) T r an drov e a tr uc k f r om N or th Car ol

ina to Hous ton, T

e xa s f orthe pur

po s e of a s hop ping tr i p, ( b) the tr u ck w as n ot

ow ned by any of

it s occupant

s, ( c) the tr uck had an a uxiliar

y ga s tank

, ( d) t he a uxiliar

y g as tankha d be e n e le c tr onic al l y and phys i cal l y dis connected and alter ed into a s ecr et s tor age com

par t m ent , ( e) T r an adm itted in his af

f idavit that he s tor ed over$ 17 0, 00 0 in a f al s e gas tank, ( f ) T r an adm itted that

the m oney w as his, (

g) the m oney w as w r apped u p a n d [sic ] p la stic a n d

se a led , (h ) D e p u ty P e n n tes tified

th a t T ra n in itia lly de n iedo w n e rs h ip o

f th e m o n e

y, a n d (i) A g e n t D a v id

so n tes tified

th a t, in h is e xp e r t op inion, t

he m one y was w r ap

pe d in a m anne rinte nde d to dis gui s e the s c e n t o f th e m o n e

y fr o m dr u gdogs . T he j ury w as cal l ed upon t o r evi ew the c o n fli cti n g test im o n y . T h ey w ere instructed b y the c ir cu itco u rtto u se th e ir good comm on s ens e and s ound hones tj udg m ent i n eval uat i ng the evi dence
. T he j ury hear d evi dence t hatcoul d l ead a r at i onal tr i erof f actt o f i nd s uf f i ci ent pr oof of the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. T he combi nat i on of

T r an' s i ncons i s t ents w orn s t at ement s , the m anneri n w hi ch the m o n ey w as w rap p ed , an d the fa ct th at T ran st o red w h at he clai m ed w as h is l if e sa v in g s in th e g a s ta n k o f a p ick u p a m o u n t to su ffic ien t e v id e n c e to su sta in T r an' s convi ct i on f

orm oney l aunder i ng. T ra n v. S ta te , 2 0 0 6 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 3 9 4 , 1 8 -24 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶55. A s t he m aj or i ty does notdi s turb the C our tof A ppeal s ’ j udgm entt o r ever s e and r ender J ohns on Q uoc N guyen’ s ( N guyen) convi ct i on and s ent ence i m pos ed by t he C i r cui tC our tof R anki n C ount y, i taf

f i r m s the C our tof

A ppeal s ’ j udgm entw i thoutany di s cus s i on. I di s s ent
as t o t he m aj or i ty’ s j udgm entt o af f i r m t he C our tof A ppeal s ’ j udgm entt o r ever s e and r ender
a s to th e ju ry ’s c o n v ictio n o f N g u y e n fo r m o n e y lau n d e rin g a n d se n ten c e to se rv e tw e n ty

### 26

year s i n the cus t ody of

the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof Corr ect i on. W hi l e I r eac h a di f f er ent
re su lt a s to N g u y e n tha n the m a jo rity a n d th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, m y d iss e n sio n is b a se d so lely on the evi dence pr es ent ed i n s uppor tof the s t at ut ory el ement s r equi r ed underM i s s i s s i ppi C od e A nn o tat ed S ect i on 97 -23-101 (R ev. 20 06 ) as dis cussed i n the C ou rtof A pp eal s’
o p in io n . T

ra n v. S ta te , 2006 M i s s . A pp. LE X I S 394, *15- 17. T he C our tof A ppeal s hel d: S ect i on 97-23- 101( 1) ( b) ( i i ) ( 1) cont ai ns tw o s ci ent erel em ents . T he fi rs t scien ter elem en t r eq u ir es th at a d efe n d an t "[ k n ew ] that the m o n etary i ns trum entorf

unds i nvol ved i n the tr ans por t at i on re pr es ent [ ed] t he pr ocee ds of s om e f

orm of unl aw ful act i vity. . . . " He r e, w e ar e of the op inion t

hat the r e c or d r e v e al

s no e v ide nc e that

N guy e n kne w the m one

y was hidde n in t

he ga s tankorthat

he kne w i t

r e pr e s e nte d p r oc e eds of s pe c i f ie d unl awf ul a c tivity . Si nce N guyen deni ed havi ng any know l edge thatthe m oney w as s ecr et ed i n the gas t ank and w as notc aughti n a ctual pos s es s i on of the money orthe truc k i n w hi c h i twas d i s c ov e r e d, the St a t e was r e qu i r e d t o pr ove t hat Ng u y e n h a d c o n s tru c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n o f th e mo n e y . Th e M i s s i s s i p p i s u p r e me courtexpl ai ned the theory of cons truct i ve pos s es s i on i n C u rr y v. S ta te , 249 So. 2d 414 ( M i s s . 1971)
. I n C u rry , the Supr eme C our ts t at ed: [ T ] her e mustbe s uf

f i ci entfac t s t o w arr anta f i ndi ng thatthe def endantw as aw ar e of

the pr es ence and char act erof the p a rticu lar su b sta n c e a n d w a s in ten tio n a lly a n d c o n sc io u sly in pos s es s i on of

i t . I tne ed notbe a ctual phys i cal po sses s i on. C ons truct i ve pos s es s i on m ay be show n by es t abl i s hi ng t hatthe [ contr aband] i nvol ved w as s ubj ectdue t o hi s dom i ni on or c o n tro l. P ro x im ity is u su a lly a n e ss e n tial e lem e n t, bu t b y itse lf i s notadequa t e i n the abs ence of ot heri ncr i m i nat i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Id . at 41 6 (em p h asis ad d ed ). In th e p re se n t ca se , the e v id e n c e in d ica ted th a t N guy e n' s gir l f r ie nd purc hase d the tr uck tw o w e e k s b e fo re N g u y e n , T ra n , an d L e le ft o n th e ir trip t o T exas . D eputy P enn f ound t he m oney hi dden i n a m odi f i ed gas t ank i n that truck. W hi l e ther e i s evi dence t hatconnec t s N guyen t o the truck, ther e i s no evi dence thatN guyen ow ned the truck. M or eover , ther e i s no evi dence that N g u y e n k n e w th a t $ 1 7 0 ,0 0 0 w a s s e c re ted in th e fa lse g a s ta n k . B y h is af f i davi t , N guyen s t at ed thathe w as notaw ar e of the money, had neve rs een i tb e f o r e , a n d d i d n o tk n o w t o w h o m i tb e l o n g e d
. A c c o r d i n g t o T r a n 'sMis s. Co deAnn. § 9 7-2 3-1 01 (1) (b) (Rev . 2 00 6) p rov ide s: 7 Whoever trans po rts , trans mits , or trans fers, o r atte m pts totran sp ort , trans mit, or trans fer a mon etary in str

um ent or f

un ds fro m a plac e in thestate t o o r througha p lac e outsi dethestate o r to a p lac e in thestate f

rom or t hro ugh a pla ce o uts idethestate; (I) With the inte nt to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful acti vity; or (ii) Knowing that the monetary instrument or funds invol ved in the tr ansportat ion rep res ent th e p roc eed s o f som e for m of un law ful ac tiv ityan d k

no wingthat su ch trans po rtatio n is de signe d in wh oleor in p art : 1. To conceal or disguise the nature, the l ocation, the source, the ownership, or the co ntrol o f t

hepro cee ds of

sp eci fi ed un law ful ac tiv ity ; or 2. To avoid a trans action re porting re quirement under stat e or federal l aw. 

### 27 af f i davi t , T r an ow ned the money and he " di d nott el l the other s of the money i n [ hi s ] truck. " W

hile it m ay s eem s uspicious that T r an w as able to s om ehow bo r r ow N

guy e n' s gir l f r i end ' s tr uc k a nd hide $1 70, 00 0 in it , al l wi thout N guy e n' s kno wle dg e, t

hat s us pic i on do e s no t

r is e to t he le v e l of pr oo f be y ond a r eas onable doubt

that N guyen knew the m oney in the gas tank re pr es ented pr oc e e ds f

r om nar c oti c s tr af

f i c king. I t is pos s ible that

N guy e n lie d when he s aid he did not

know about

the m oney. I

t is als o pos s ible t

hat T r an lied w h en h e said N

gu yen did n ot kn ow a bo u t the m on ey. S til

l , th ose po ssibil

ities, alone, ar e insuf

f i cient pr oof that N guyen knew that

the m oney r epr es ented p ro c e e d s o f so m e fo rm o

f u n la w fu l a c tivity
. A ccordi ng l y, w e revers e N guyen' s convi ct i on and r endera j ud gm entof acqui t t al
. W e cons i derthe r emai ni ng i s s ues as they appl y t o T r an. T r an , 2 0 0 6 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 3 9 4 , * 1 5 -17 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶56. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 97- 23- 101 r equi r es thata def endantknow t hat the monet ary i nst rum ent orf unds i nvol ved i n the tr ans por t at i on r epr es ent ed the pr ocee ds f rom som e f

or m of unl aw f ul act i vi ty. T he C our tof A ppeal s f

ound thatno evi dence 7
su p p o rte d th a t N g u y e n k n e w th a t th e m o n e y w a s h id d e n in th e fa lse g a s ta n k o r th a t it
r epr es ent ed the proc eeds of s peci f i ed unl aw f

ul act i vi ty. H ow ever , the maj or i ty f ound t hat th e e v id e n c e w a s s u ffic ien t to su p p o rt th a t T ra n k n e w tha t th e m o n e y w a s h id d e n a n d th a t itNguy en , Tran , and Lee ach p rov ide d writtens tat em ents to lawe nf orc em ent. The y w ere 8 also questi oned by law enforce ment. The intervi ews were video-tape d and transcr ipts of the videotaped inte rviews were provi ded to the jury to read while watching the vi deo-tape. Nguy enwa s n ot s ureab out hi s g irl friend’s last n am e, but her Am eri can first nam e w as 9 Nancy. He stated that he thought herlast name was possibly Ton. 

### 28 r epr es ent ed the pr ocee ds f r om unl aw f

ul a ct i vi ty. T he C our tof A ppeal s bas ed i t s r eas oni ng o n the fa ct th at T ran ch an g ed h is st o ry c o n ce rnin g w h ethe r th e m o n ey w as h is o r no t. T ran ’s unt rut hf ul ne s s w a s the ba s i s of the c ou r t ’ s r e a s on i ng tha tTr a n was a w a r e tha tthe money
r epr es ent ed the pr ocee ds f r om unl aw f

ul act i vi ty. ¶ 5 7 . I fin d it v e ry p ro b lem a tic th a t th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d in th e r e c o rd is n o t e q u a lly
s uppor t i ve of

the j ury’ s c onvi ct i on of N guyen f

ormoney l aunder i ng. N guyen s t at ed thathe 8
cam e t o N orth C arol i na a m on th earl i er af t er hav i ng b een i nv i t ed by h i s fr i end o f m any years, T r an, t o vi s i t . H ow ever , de s pi t e tr avel i ng a l l the w ay t o N or th Car ol i na t o vi s i t , N guyen l at er s a id th a t T ra n w a s “ n o t to o c lo s e a fr ie n d .” ¶58. N guyen s t at ed thathe w as i n N or th C ar ol i na t hi s t i m e t o s ee hi s “gi r l f r i end” w ho l i ved i n Ch a r l o t t e , No r th Ca r o l i n a . Ng u y e n tr a v e l e d t o Ch a r l o t t e , No r th Ca r o l i n a , f r o m h i s h o me 9 i n N ew O rl eans, L ou i si ana. Itis n ot exactl y cl ear ho w N gu yen m eth i s gir l fr i end
. H e fi rs t
s ai d they metove rthe t el ephone. W hen ques t i oned f ur ther , he then s t at ed thathe f ound her on the comput erand a f r i end t ol d hi m t o t al k t o her
. H e s t at ed thatthey meti n per s on, and they then t al ked on the t el ephone. N guyen s t at ed thathe had be en st ayi ng w i th hi s gi r l f r i end i n N orth C arol i na forapproxim at el y tw o t o three w eeks before the t ri p t o H o u ston , T ex as. N guyen s t at ed thathe had know n hi s gi r l f r i end onl y f

ora s hor tt i m e.

### 29

¶59. W hi l e i n N or th C ar ol i na, N guyen w r ecke d hi s car . N guyen s t at ed that hi s gi r l f r i end d id n o t h a v e a n a u to m o b ile a t first, b u t sh e b o u g h t a tru c k w h ile h e w a s th e re . N g u y e n d id notknow f

r om w ho m s he h a d pu r c ha s e d the truc k. H oweve r , Nguye n s t a t e d tha th e w ent
w i th hi s new gi rl f

r i end t o getthe t ags f

orthe truck s he had r ece nt l y pur chas ed. N guyen ended up on a r oad tr i p i n hi s gi r l f r i end’ s truck hea ded f

orH ous t on, T exas , on a s hoppi ng trip to th e G a lleria M a ll w ith T ra n a n d a fe m a le n a m e d H a n h L e . It w a s o n th is trip to H o u sto n th a t N g u y e n w a s a rre ste d fo r m o n e y lau n d e rin g in R a n k in C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. ¶60. I n hi s vi deo- t aped i nt ervi ew w i th l aw enf or cement , N guyen admi t t ed that he di d not have a ny m oney t o pur chas e anythi ng on thi s s hoppi ng tr i p. N guyen s t at ed thati f he s aw a n y th in g th a t h e w a n ted to b u y fo r h is g irlfrien d , li k e a p u rse , tha t h e w o u ld g o b a c k to H o u sto n , fro m N o rth C a ro lin a , w ith m o n e y to p u rc h a se it. N g u y e n sta ted th a t h e p lan n e d to
s pend tw o orthr ee da ys i n H ous t on, buthe di d nothave a des i gnat ed pl ace t o s t ay. ¶61. N guyen admi t t ed thathe dr ove partof the tr i p and t ook turns f i l l i ng up the truck’ s gas t ank. N guyen f

i r s ts ai d thathe ove rhear d hi s gi r l f r i end and s om e otheruni dent i f i ed per s on t al ki ng aboutthe truck havi ng a br oken gas t ank. ¶6 2. W hen ques t i one d f urthe ra bo utw ho t ol d h i m orho w he he a r d a bo utthe ga s t ank, N guyen cha nged hi s s t ory. H e s t at ed thathe knew nott o putgas i n the s econd ga s t ank beca us e he c oul d s m el l gas l eaki ng f r om the t ank w hen he putgas i n the s econd t ank. W hen
as ked i f T r an putgas i n the s econd “ f al s e” ga s t ank, N guyen s ai d he di d not
. N guyen s t at ed thatT r an musthave s m el l ed t he gas l eaki ng as w el l becaus e he neverdi s cus s ed the gas t ank
w i th T r an. D ur i ng hi s i nt ervi ew w i th the pol i ce, N guyen w as a s ked i f the money smel l ed. H e admi t t ed thatthe money smel l ed onl y l i ke money.

### 30

¶63. O f

f i cer L arr y D avi ds on t es t i f i ed as an expert w i tnes s f or the St at e i n the f

i el d of drug tr af f i cki ng and the pr ocee ds of drug tr af

f i cki ng. A tthe t i m e of

the tr i al , O f

f i cerD avi ds on
w as empl oyed as an age ntw i th the D rug E nf or cementA dm i ni s tr at i on. H e t es t i f i ed that N or th C ar ol i na i s know n as a w ar ehous e f ordrug di s tr i but i on on the eas tcoas t . H e f ur ther t es t i f i ed thatH ous t on, T exas , i s know n as a l ar ge s t orage zone i n nar cot i cs di s tr i but i on, as
w el l as a pl ace know n f orm oney l aunder i ng act i vi ty. O f f i cerD avi ds on t es t i f

i ed that“the onl y t i m e I ’ ve eve rs een f al s e gas t anks w er e by peopl e thatw er e haul i ng nar cot i cs ort aki ng
m o n e y b a c k .” H e sta ted th a t in a c a se lik e th is w h e re th e re w a s n o g a s in a g a s ta n k , itis
s tr i ct l y a dumm y gas t ank. T he St at e as ked O f f i cerD avi ds on i f

i n hi s expertopi ni on, bas ed upon al l of

the evi dence r evi ew ed and the tr af f i cki ng f act or s di s cus s ed, w hetherthe money l ocat ed i n t he f

al s e gas t ank w as the pr ocee ds of s om e unl aw f

ul act i vi ty. O f

f i cerD avi ds on
r es ponded thati n hi s opi ni on the money w as der i ved f r om s om e type of

nar cot i cs tr af

f i cki ng. ¶6 4 . Itis cl ea r th at th e S tate p re se n ted su ffi cien t evid en ce that N g u y en an d T ran w ere
w or ki ng t ogetheron a j oi nte nt erpr i s e t o l aunderm oney t o s us t ai n N guyen' s convi ct i on f or
m oney l aunder i ng. O f

f i cerD avi ds on t es t i f

i ed the $170, 000 w as di s cover ed i n the f al s e gas tan k w ra p p e d in a lu m in u m fo il an d v a c u u m -se a led in p las tic. H e tes tified th a t b a se d o n h is exper i ence, the purpos e of vacuum- s eal i ng the money w as t o pr eventthe drug dogs us ed
a lo n g the h ig h w a y s fro m b e in g ab le to sm e ll th e d ru g s. O ffic e r D a v id so n tes tified tha t itis notuncomm on f

orthe U S curr ency and the drugs t o be st or ed t ogether , caus i ng the curr ency t o s m el l l i ke the drugs , orf orf l oat i ng coca i ne t o t ai ntthe curr ency. ¶6 5. N guyen’ s s t at ement t o t he pol i ce c ont ai ned numer ous i ncons i s t e nci es and an i m pl aus i bl e ac countof

event s ; he cha nged hi s s t ory as t o how h e k new n ott o putgas ol i ne

### 31

in th e fa lse tan k ; h e a d m itt e d th a t h e d ro v e th e tru c k a n d a d d e d fu e l to th e tru c k , a n d th a t h is “gi r l f r i end ” lentt he truck t o T r an and N guyen t o dr i ve t o H ous t on, T exas , t o s hop f or C hr i s t m as pr es ent s atthe G al l er i a M al l w i thoutany money. H ow ever , N guyen ar gues that no evi dence w as pr esent ed forthe j ury t o f i nd hi m gui l ty of

m oney l aunder i ng as t o t he $170, 000 cas h di s cover ed i n t he f al s e gas t ank of

hi s gi r l f r i end’ s truck. ¶66. I n m y opi ni on, al l of thi s demonstr at es s uf f i ci ent evi dence f

or the j ury t o deduce t hat N g u y e n w a s a w a re o f th e m o n e y in th e fa lse g a s ta n k a n d th a t th e m o n e y , w ra p p e d in al um i num f

oi l and vac uum - s eal ed i n pl as t i c, r e pr e s e nt e d the pr oc e e ds f r om unl a w f

ul act i vi ty. B es i des N guyen’ s st at ementw hi ch w as i ntr oduced i nt o evi dence , O f f i cerD avi ds on t es t i f

i ed
a s a D E A a g e n t th a t fa lse g a s ta n k s w e re u se d to tra ffic n a rc o tics a n d to m o v e m o n e y to laun d er. ¶67. Forthe f

or goi ng r eas ons , I r es pect f ul l y c oncuri n pa r ta nd di s s ent i n part . B as ed on the e v iden ce p rese n ted, I w o u ld affirm N g u y en ’s co n v ict ion an d sen tenc e i n the C i rcui t C o u rt
o f R an k in C o u n ty, M issi ssipp i, an d rev erse the ju d g m en t of th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls. H o w ev er, I c o n c u r w ith th e m a

jo rity ’s h o ld in g to a ffirm T ra n ’s c o n v ictio n a n d s e n ten c e in th e C irc u it C our tof R anki n C ount y. RA ND OL P H, J . , J OI N S T HI S OP I N I ON . S MI T H, C . J . , J OI NS T HI S OP I NI ON I N PART.