Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180309_0000590.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:08:23+00:00

Document:
Vance Edward Volious, Jr., Defendant.
This matter is before the court on Defendant Vance Edward Volious, Jr.'s Motion to Dismiss Charges and Brief (ECF No. 226).
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) establishes that an indictment “must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged . . . .” “A motion to dismiss an indictment tests whether the indictment sufficiently charges the offense the defendant is accused of committing.” United States v. Roof, 225 F.Supp.3d 438, 441-42 (D.S.C. 2016) (citing United States v. Vanderhorst, 2 F.Supp.3d 792, 795 (D.S.C. 2014)). “To pass constitutional muster, an indictment must (1) indicate the elements of the offense and fairly inform the defendant of the exact charges and (2) enable the defendant to plead double jeopardy in subsequent prosecutions for the same offense.” Vanderhorst, 2 F.Supp.3d at 795 (quoting United States v. Williams, 152 F.3d 294, 299 (4th Cir.1998)). One of the principal purposes of a grand jury indictment is to notify the defendant of the charges against him so that he can prepare his defense accordingly. Id. (quoting United States v. Fogel, 901 F.2d 23, 25 (4th Cir. 1990)). Specifically, the Fourth Circuit has held that “[a]n indictment is sufficient if it states each of the essential elements of the offense.” U.S. v. Lockhart, 382 F.3d 447, 449 (4th Cir. 2004) (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)).
Furthermore, “a district court [generally] may not dismiss an indictment on a determination of facts: ‘a challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment . . . is ordinarily limited to the allegations contained in the indictment.'” Roof, 225 F.Supp.3d at 442 (quoting United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405, 415 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted)). “To obtain dismissal of an indictment, therefore, a defendant must show the allegations, even if true, fail to state an offense.” United States v. Thomas, 367 F.3d 194, 197 (4th Cir. 2004).
First, the court notes that Defendant cites to no case law in support of his argument that civil pleading requirements should apply in the criminal context. Moreover, the court does not find that the Supreme Court's decision in Hamling supports Defendant's argument. In Hamling, the court held that an indictment is sufficient if it “contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend . . . .” 418 U.S. at 117. The Court noted that “[i]t is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself, as long as ‘those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished.'” Id. (citing United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 612 (1882)). However, the Court noted that when the statute is used to describe the offense in a general manner, “it must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offence, coming under the general description, with which he is charged.” Id. (quoting United States v. Hess, 124 U.S. 483, 487 (1888)); see also Vanderhorst, 2 F.Supp.3d at 798.
The Indictment laid out the offenses, their respective elements, and multiple specific allegations in a way that was more than sufficient to “notify the defendant of the charges against him . . . .” See Vanderhorst, 2 F.Supp.3d at 795 (quoting United States v. Fogel, 901 F.2d 23, 25 (4th Cir.1990)). Accordingly, the court finds Defendant's motion to be without merit.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.