Title: Ex parte State of Alabama. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: State of Alabama v. Mitchell Roffler and MichelleRoffler)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: December 22, 2010

Annotate this Case Download PDF REL: 12/22/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 1090007 Ex parte S t a t e o f Alabama PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In r e : S t a t e o f Alabama v. Mitchell Roffler and M i c h e l l e R o f f l e r ) ( M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t , CC-06-4145 and CC-06-4162; C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , CR-08-0045) STUART, Justice. 1090007 We g r a n t e d t h e S t a t e ' s p e t i t i o n to determine 21st an i s s u e of f i r s t impression: c e n t u r y an i n d i c t m e n t t h a t certain 1975, dollar amount, f o ra writ charges i n violation of c e r t i o r a r i whether theft of funds o f § 13A-8-3, i s legally furniture Roffler store, Gulf and through a layaway plan layaway made furniture purchase credit. The paid plan. A customer purchase operated i n Mobile. participating payments accepted and d e b i t - c a r d the t o t a l Furniture, without having check, Roffler a The the option of purchasing furniture monthly Rofflers two-party Michelle Coast o f f e r e d customers transaction, of those and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y Rofflers check, 1 sufficient. Facts Mitchell in a A l a . Code b u t does n o t d e s i g n a t e t h e medium o f e x c h a n g e funds i n the toward his to formally apply layaway payments i n the or her f o r new i n cash, third-party check, transaction. When a c u s t o m e r h a d price of the furniture credit-card that had been A "medium o f e x c h a n g e " i s d e f i n e d as " s o m e t h i n g commonly a c c e p t e d i n exchange f o r goods and s e r v i c e s and r e c o g n i z e d as representing a standard of value." Merriam-Webster's C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y 771 ( 1 1 t h e d . 2 0 0 3 ) . 1 2 1090007 p l a c e d on l a y a w a y , t h e R o f f l e r s the customer On doors had within January of Gulf failed a reasonable 6, 2006, Coast to would d e l i v e r the f u r n i t u r e to time. the City of F u r n i t u r e because, pay city sales Mobile i t said, taxes. At Rofflers had s e v e r a l a c t i v e layaway accounts store. When layaway inquire about learned that some their accounts jury with 23 n o t be substantially either money at the t h e same located. A November 6, issued an indictment counts of theft. owner and t h e m o n e t a r y and each f o r t h e name amount. F o r example, the furniture furniture, on except Rofflers attempted and, or f u r n i t u r e , the time, they criminal 2006, Each asserted read property one o f t h e read: "The G r a n d Jury of said County charge[s] that, before the finding of t h i s indictment, MITCHELL R O F F L E R , w h o s e name i s o t h e r w i s e unknown t o t h e Grand Jury, did knowingly obtain or exert u n a u t h o r i z e d c o n t r o l over the p r o p e r t y of another, w i t h i n t e n t t o d e p r i v e t h e owner t h e r e o f , t o w i t : s i x thousand d o l l a r s ($6,000.00) t h e p r o p e r t y o f Randy G a r n e r , i n v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-8-3 o f t h e Code 3 a count count of the count to charging a l a y a w a y c u s t o m e r t o whom t h e i n d i c t m e n t owed indictment could their the that customers and/or commenced, grand Roffler represented Roffler was County Mitchell the the R o f f l e r s investigation Mobile of padlocked 1090007 of Alabama, a g a i n s t State of Alabama." A similar January Court indictment 14, to the was 2007, the R o f f l e r s enter pleas the trial, the the indictments of not in each indictments the counts Rofflers the for had language n o t i c e of the prepare The the 8 of offenses exchange to r e c e i v e d the the specify funds. counts dismiss the failed avoid the dismissed the 15 provide risk the counts the means According the other that did to amounts language in which the by the Rofflers, them w i t h c h a r g e so a s t o a l l o w t h e m t o to to the the of indictments double with adequate adequately jeopardy. prejudice, h o l d i n g t h a t the i n d i c t m e n t s were l e g a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t each count d i d not s t a t e the medium o f 4 exchange before of monetary faulted the i n each arguing because On Circuit against witnesses of they i n each count d i d not court cases 23 moved t o Specifically, and the indictments, of failing The complaining medium a defense trial the charge State's of During p r e l i m i n a r y matters to stolen. guilty. Rofflers of failed s p e c i f y the allegedly The dignity appeared i n the Mobile dismissed because in court. counts not State and issued against Michelle Roffler. R o f f l e r s were c o n s o l i d a t e d . appear peace of because the funds 1090007 allegedly court relied App. of stolen. 1986), $10,000 identify United The which held was States that insufficient a check, memorandum, Criminal reverse this affirmed i t failed charged with to stealing 488 S o . 2 d a t 4 7 . the t r i a l for certiorari decision. We court's i n an dismissal [No. C R - 0 8 - 0 0 4 5 , A u g u s t App. 2009). review granted The State of the Court the w r i t ; we of now and remand. The App. the theft of Criminal Appeals, ( A l a . Crim. Standard novo. ( A l a . Crim. charging or coal." State v. R o f f l e r , Court Appeals' trial the dismissal of the indictments. 7, 2 0 0 9 ] _ _ _ S o . 3 d _ _ _ petitioned the because were 7, 2 0 0 9 , t h e C o u r t of t h e i n d i c t m e n t s . 488 S o . 2 d 44 an i n d i c t m e n t the defendants currency, On A u g u s t i t s conclusion, v. S t a t e , legally appealed unpublished reaching on S h u b e r t "whether State In 2 legal sufficiency Eskridge v. S t a t e , of Review o f an indictment i s reviewed 7 0 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 8 , 1350 de ( A l a . Crim. 1997). Discussion The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o h e l d t h a t a f a t a l v a r i a n c e e x i s t e d between t h e i n d i c t m e n t s and t h e e v i d e n c e p r o f f e r e d by t h e State. 2 5 1090007 The in the theft State presents 21st century of a c e r t a i n statutory seq., identifies the 1986, the an dollar i s s u e of indictment A l a . Code dollar identify Court of the first i m p r e s s i o n : whether charging amount o f f u n d s p r o v i s i o n s d e f i n i n g the 13A-8-1 e t does not an 1975, offenses funds medium o f e x c h a n g e C r i m i n a l Appeals offense in violation is legally amount o f t h e the of theft, sufficient allegedly of those of see the § i f i t taken but funds. In held: " [ T ] h e i n d i c t m e n t i n t h i s c a s e was ' b a d ' b e c a u s e i t merely a l l e g e d the t h e f t of ' t o - w i t : $10,000.00, the p r o p e r t y o f t o - w i t : THOMAS B U R K E ' w i t h o u t f u r t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n of the p r o p e r t y taken. "'The i n d i c t m e n t i n t h i s case i s bad. I t should have averred the number and denomination o f t h e c o i n s , o r o f some o f t h e m , o r t h a t t h e same w e r e t o t h e grand j u r y unknown. Such have been the r u l i n g s o f t h i s c o u r t ; and, as t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t i s b o t h r e a s o n a b l e a n d e a s i l y c o n f o r m e d t o , we are u n w i l l i n g to depart from i t . S t a t e v. Murphy, 6 A l a . 845 [(1844)]; D u B o i s v. State, 50 Ala. 139 [(1874)]; G r a n t v. S t a t e , 5 5 A l a . 201 [ ( 1 8 7 6 ) ] ; Whart. Crim. P l . § 218.' B u r n e y v . S t a t e , 87 A l a . 8 0 , 6 So. 3 9 1 , 392 ( 1 8 8 9 ) ( t w o - c o u n t i n d i c t m e n t d e s c r i b i n g p r o p e r t y a s 'two h u n d r e d d o l l a r s i n g o l d c o i n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ' and 'two hundred d o l l a r s ' ) . "'Reed v . State, 88 Ala. 36, 6 So. 840 (18 8 9) ( i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g i n g t h e f t of 'three d o l l a r s and sixty cents i n money of the United States of America' is ' d e f e c t i v e and insufficient in not 6 of 1090007 stating the number and denomination'); Grant v. S t a t e , 55 A l a . 2 0 1 , 208 (1876)('The i n d i c t m e n t [ f o r l a r c e n y ] must a l s o , s t a t e t h e k i n d and description of the goods s t o l e n . I f the l a r c e n y i s of c o i n , the n u m b e r a n d d e n o m i n a t i o n m u s t be s t a t e d When t h e s p e c i e s and d e n o m i n a t i o n o f t h e c o i n a r e unknown t o the grand jury, the f a c t may be averred, and a g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n , as so many d o l l a r s i n g o l d , o r i n s i l v e r c o i n , w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t . ' ) ; C r o k e r v. State, 47 A l a . 5 3 , 57 (1872)(The d e s c r i p t i o n of money i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t as ' t e n d o l l a r s i n money o f U n i t e d S t a t e s c u r r e n c y ' was 'too i n d e f i n i t e . The term "currency," when a p p l i e d t o the medium of t r a d e , means e q u a l l y c o i n , b a n k n o t e s , or notes i s s u e d by t h e g o v e r n m e n t . ' ) ; S t a t e v. Murphy, 6 A l a . 845, 851 (1844) ('[T]he law requires the denomination a n d n u m b e r o f c o i n t o be s t a t e d i n t h e indictment.'). See a l s o L e v y v . S t a t e , 79 A l a . 259 ( 1 8 8 5 ) ; E d w a r d s v . S t a t e , 379 So. 2 d 336 ( A l a . Cr. A p p . 1 9 7 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , E x p a r t e E d w a r d s , 379 So. 2 d 339 ( A l a . 1980). This s p e c i f i c p r i n c i p l e i s e x p r e s s l y n o t e d i n § 1 5 - 8 - 5 , [ A l a . Code 1975,] w h i c h d i r e c t s t h a t ' w o r d s u s e d i n an i n d i c t m e n t m u s t be construed in their usual acceptation i n common l a n g u a g e . ' See W i l k e r s o n v . S t a t e , 23 A l a . A p p . 520, 128 So. 777 (1930). "The p r o p e r f o r m f o r an i n d i c t m e n t f o r t h e f t b y d e c e p t i o n u n d e r § 13A-8-3 i s f o u n d i n t h e I n d i c t m e n t and Warrant Manual prepared by the Alabama Law Institute and the Alabama O f f i c e of Prosecution S e r v i c e s a t p p . 8-1 a n d 8 - 1 ( a ) . Although there are two a l t e r n a t i v e f o r m s p r o v i d e d f o r a c h a r g e o f t h e f t by d e c e p t i o n , e a c h o f t h o s e alternatives begins, 'A.B. d i d knowingly o b t a i n , by d e c e p t i o n , control over (description of property), Every i n d i c t m e n t form f o r t h e f t of p r o p e r t y c o n t a i n s the same ' ( d e s c r i p t i o n o f p r o p e r t y ) ' r e q u i r e m e n t . " ' O b v i o u s l y , a c h e c k i s n o t m o n e y , ' a n d i n an i n d i c t m e n t , an a l l e g a t i o n o f c o n v e r s i o n o f money w i l l not cover a c o n v e r s i o n of a check. C a r r v. 7 1090007 S t a t e , 104 A l a . 4 3 , 16 So. 155, 1 60 (18 94 ) . See a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v . F e r n a n d o , 745 F . 2 d 1 3 2 8 , 1330 (10th C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) ( ' [ S ] t a t e c o u r t s have i n t e r p r e t e d "money" ... as n o t i n c l u d i n g c h e c k s . ' ) . 'The word " d o l l a r s " i m p a r t s t o t h e common u n d e r s t a n d i n g , the m e a n i n g o f a t h i n g o f v a l u e , ' and the indictment must 'designate the kind of dollars stolen.' L e o n a r d v. State, 115 A l a . 80 , 22 So. 564 , 565 (1897). 'A c h e c k i s a w r i t t e n o r d e r , o r request, f o r t h e p a y m e n t o f money, a d d r e s s e d t o a b a n k o r banker.' T h o m p s o n v . S t a t e , 49 A l a . 16, 18 (1873). 'A c h e c k i s e s s e n t i a l l y c o m m e r c i a l p a p e r , p o s s e s s i n g the attributes of a contract, and certain c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p r o p e r t y , and i t i s e q u i v a l e n t t o a p r o m i s e t o pay upon the p a r t of the d r a w e r . It is executory i n i t s nature.' S c o t t v . S t a t e , 33 A l a . A p p . 3 2 8 , 3 3 0 , 33 So. 2 d 390 (1948). 'A c h e c k i s a contract.' G o o c h v . S t a t e , 24 9 A l a . 477 , 47 9, 31 So. 2 d 776 (1947). "The indictment used a 'dollar sign' in d e s c r i b i n g t h e p r o p e r t y , w h i c h i s ' [ t ] h e s y m b o l ($) for a dollar or dollars when p l a c e d before a n u m e r a l . ' The A m e r i c a n H e r i t a g e D i c t i o n a r y o f the E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e 3 8 9 (19 6 9 ) ; W e b s t e r ' s T h i r d New I n t e r n a t i o n a l D i c t i o n a r y 670 (1971). A 'dollar' is ' [ t ] h e b a s i c monetary u n i t of the U n i t e d States, Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, Guyana, Liberia, M a l a y s i a , New Z e a l a n d , T r i n i d a d a n d T o b a g o , W e s t e r n Samoa, a n d o f H o n g K o n g a n d S i n g a p o r e , e q u a l t o 100 c e n t s , ' w i t h t h e r a t e s o f e x c h a n g e and equivalence i n U.S. dollars differing. American Heritage 389. A ' d o l l a r ' i s ' 1 : an o l d G e r m a n t a l e r c o i n 2: any one of a number o f coins of v a r i o u s countries patterned after the taler: ... 3a: the basic monetary u n i t of the U.S. serving as a medium standard, or basis of foreign exchange ' Webster's 669. "It i s f u n d a m e n t a l t h a t an indictment 'must s t a t e the f a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g the o f f e n s e i n o r d i n a r y a n d c o n c i s e l a n g u a g e , ... i n s u c h a m a n n e r as t o 8 1090007 e n a b l e a p e r s o n o f common u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o know w h a t i s i n t e n d e d and w i t h t h a t d e g r e e o f c e r t a i n t y w h i c h w i l l e n a b l e t h e c o u r t , on c o n v i c t i o n , t o p r o n o u n c e t h e p r o p e r j u d g m e n t . ' A l a b a m a Code 1975, § 1 5 - 8 - 2 5 . ' I n d i c t m e n t s c a n n o t be a i d e d b y i n t e n d m e n t , b u t m u s t p o s i t i v e l y and e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e what t h e p r i s o n e r i s c a l l e d upon t o a n s w e r . ' S t a t e v. Seay, 3 Stew. 123, 130-31 ( A l a . 1 8 3 0 ) . " F r o m t h e i n d i c t m e n t i n t h i s c a s e , i t c a n n o t be a s c e r t a i n e d w h e t h e r the d e f e n d a n t s were c h a r g e d w i t h s t e a l i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s c u r r e n c y , a check, or c o a l . " Shubert v. In State, Appeals description common-law of property 1844, five the the value silver the p r o p e r t y Shubert, in which and when c h a r g i n g 13A-8-1 was et medium theft of of five the of exchange of the charging to the a and description an offense 1975. In certain a when the to embezzlement, Code theft funds Court of p r o p e r t y , Ala. m a t e r i a l because value dollar describing medium of an the exchange taken. For example, in g o l d c o i n s d i d not equal the value of c o i n s ; t h e r e f o r e , i n 1844, i n an indictment larceny, seq., common-law the of included an the applicable a p p l i e d that precedent charging taken in taken funds, determined conclusion precedent of p r o p e r t y taken indictment 46-47. upon theft, § at property of in 2d relied false pretenses, defined So. its reaching Criminal amount 488 indictment charging 9 to adequately describe common-law t h e f t of an 1090007 amount o f f u n d s determine t h e m e d i u m o f e x c h a n g e h a d t o be d e s c r i b e d t o the value 6 A l a . 8 4 5 , 851 of the funds common-law t h e medium indictment d i d not In was include certain the amount medium of t h e same s t a n d a r d transaction, credit-card etc. -- d o e s n o t d e t e r m i n e the d o l l a r multiple-party the various transaction, financial standard determine or of value electronic various recognize consequently, the value funds, form of of cash, businesses, the funds, funds. check, debit-card banks, dollar and has a t h e medium o f e x c h a n g e does n o t o f a m o n e t a r y amount. mediums check, d e b i t - transaction, that of f o r the d o l l a r . o f t h e amount o f i s i n the credit-card institutions value; the mediums transaction, electronic the value amount check, funds, exchange, m e d i u m o f e x c h a n g e i n v o l v e d -- w h e t h e r c a s h , Whether of when was m a t e r i a l , a n d , i f t h e however, card the a Hence, and insufficient. the 21st century, exchange r e p r e s e n t The of of exchange legally the denomination i n the indictment). theft describing indictment See S t a t e v . M u r p h y , (1844)(requiring that n u m b e r o f c o i n s be s p e c i f i e d pleading taken. exchange as This acceptance interchangeable of and r e p r e s e n t i n g e q u i v a l e n t v a l u e s f o r t h e d o l l a r makes d e s c r i b i n g 10 1090007 the medium over o f exchange i m m a t e r i a l when which a defendant allegedly control. The material describing has e x e r c i s e d concern t h e funds unauthorized i s the monetary amount. T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t a n i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g i n g t h e o f f e n s e of theft the does of a certain provisions not inviolation o f § 13A-8-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code identify sufficient. m o n e t a r y amount, Section the medium of 1975, b u t t h a t exchange 1 5 - 8 - 2 5 , A l a . Code o f one o f i s legally 1975, p r o v i d e s : "An i n d i c t m e n t m u s t s t a t e t h e f a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g the offense i n ordinary and c o n c i s e language, w i t h o u t p r o l i x i t y o r r e p e t i t i o n , i n s u c h a manner as t o e n a b l e a p e r s o n o f common u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o know what i s i n t e n d e d and w i t h t h a t degree o f c e r t a i n t y which will enable the court, on c o n v i c t i o n , t o pronounce t h e judgment." See also Rule indictment in with "shall ordinary defendant 1 3 . 2 , A l a . R. be a p l a i n language P. (providing concise statement sufficiently definite that an of the charge to inform a o f common u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d a n d a degree of certainty pronounce which conviction, to unreasonable to conclude that charged Crim. will the proper enable the court, judgment"). upon It i s i n the 21st century a defendant i n an i n d i c t m e n t w i t h e x e r c i s i n g u n a u t h o r i z e d c o n t r o l o v e r a c e r t a i n m o n e t a r y amount w o u l d 11 n o t know w h a t i s i n t e n d e d 1090007 o r t h a t a c o u r t c o u l d n o t p r o n o u n c e j u d g m e n t on c o n v i c t i o n f o r theft of said designated. 8-25, the allegedly medium monetary amount over the defendant we even adequate notice and t o a v o i d cannot conclude in violation Code those 1975, does funds. Section defendant is not include defendant charging 13A-8-1 t h e medium 1 5 - 8 - 4 , A l a . Code jeopardy. a of § amount of the t h e f t to double that certain amount the indictment of the monetary i f an i n d i c t m e n t Ala. i s not c o n t r o l does not i d e n t i f y t h e substantially prejudiced monetary exchange i f the which Identification h i s or her defense Moreover, of we h o l d t h a t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 1 5 ¬ exerting unauthorized provides medium 1975, a r e s a t i s f i e d of exchange. prepare i f the Therefore, A l a . Code stating alone amount, theft of a et seq., of exchange 1975, is of provides: "An i n d i c t m e n t m u s t n o t b e h e l d insufficient, nor can t h e t r i a l , judgment or o t h e r proceedings thereon be a f f e c t e d b y r e a s o n o f a n y d e f e c t or i m p e r f e c t i o n i n any m a t t e r o r form w h i c h does n o t p r e j u d i c e t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t on the trial." See a l s o R u l e 1 3 . 5 ( c ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. c h a r g e s h a l l be d e e m e d i n v a l i d , or other proceedings thereon (stating that "[n]o nor s h a l l the t r i a l , be manner a f f e c t e d , f o r any d e f e c t 12 stayed, arrested, or i m p e r f e c t i o n judgment, o r i n any i n the charge 1090007 which does not t e n d t o p r e j u d i c e the s u b s t a n t i a l defendant the upon t h e m e r i t s " ) . v a r i o u s mediums value negates rights any of of a defendant a defendant, more definite statement Ala. R. P. more definite entry of a were a certain to protect after the (1) amount Rofflers a g a i n s t the f o r the amount the regard. of of monetary substantial to safeguard Procedure provide the State p r o v i d e a offense. the the However, of C r i m i n a l that same See a defendant offense Rule may charged 13.2(3), move for a before the the i n d i c t m e n t s c h a r g i n g the R o f f l e r s sufficient conviction, monetary placed statement case, them jeopardy the p r e j u d i c e to the (providing monetary enable having to request that of the plea). In t h i s theft as Rules a means f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t Crim. of in this the Alabama of Again, the g e n e r a l acceptance exchange finding rights to i d e n t i f y from to an Rofflers on their possibility same o f f e n s e , a n d allegedly notice of (4) to as 13 and theft defense, twice enable the whom exact (2) to put in court, i t was charge of (3) D e s i g n a t i o n of from to the -- individual, being judgment. taken charge identified prepare to pronounce the with the taken so that 1090007 they could parte prepare Harper, a knowing and adequate defense. 594 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 3 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , we I n Ex stated: "The c r u c i a l question, of course, i s whether the indictment s u f f i c i e n t l y apprises the accused with reasonable c e r t a i n t y of the nature of the accusation made a g a i n s t h i m s o t h a t he may p r e p a r e h i s d e f e n s e , that h e may b e p r o t e c t e d against a subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . " We c o n c l u d e State will obtained that the indictments be r e q u i r e d or exerted to prove Rofflers] funds." facts the Thus, the State indictments intended case d i d . Here, t h e the Rofflers "knowingly control a certain individual and t h a t individual of to a designated to deprive the language will that unauthorized m o n e t a r y amount b e l o n g i n g [the i n this have i n the indictments to prove are legally that over to sustain those specified the a conviction; sufficient. Conclusion Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we reverse t h e judgment of the C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s and remand t h i s case f o r p r o c e e d i n g s consistent with this R E V E R S E D AND Lyons, opinion. REMANDED. Woodall, Smith, Bolin, concur. Stuart, J . , concurs specially. 14 Parker, and Murdock,J J . , 1090007 Cobb, C . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t part. 15 i n part and d i s s e n t s i n 1090007 STUART, J u s t i c e In (concurring addition legally concluding insufficient, variance existed proffered reached to by this the the State. the trial 2d 1283(Ala. C r i m . App. is fatally amount adduced at of trial Court support court United established quoting the from Harrison 2009), suffered indictments against specified attempted cited States Appeals, of of of to prove Rofflers credit held from the dollar card and State, that a "the fatal Rofflers c h a r g e s by checks in debit 16 also but in the the the stole 45, (Ala. against because the thefts have evidence and in the "the would transactions was Criminal 47-48 instances, a evidence amount State presenting So. indictment Court of 3d the 686 a defendant variance" some card instances." So. an indictments but fatal evidence State, that check 13 a Appeals c h a r g e d them w i t h amounts, those received v. memorandum, t h e v. were i t s d i s m i s s a l of Delevie a the Criminal currency, that that and 1996), which holds In i t s u n p u b l i s h e d Rofflers indictments In stolen. App. indictments concluded d e f e c t i v e when i t a l l e g e s t h a t certain Crim. the court The conclusion. indictments, that trial between the specially). that monies other 1090007 The a law i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d that a determination fatal variance exists evidence can only b e made evidence at t r i a l . State, Crim. supra; App. after and 1986)(all the indictment the State See Ex p a r t e 1 9 9 0 ) ; Ex p a r t e A i r h a r t , v. between Brooks, whether and has p r e s e n t e d i t s 562 S o . 2 d 604 477 S o . 2 d 979 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; Shubert v. S t a t e , addressing the (Ala. Harrison 488 S o . 2 d 44 ( A l a . the issue whether a fatal v a r i a n c e e x i s t e d between the o f f e n s e charged i n the i n d i c t m e n t and the State's evidence the R o f f l e r s ' Rofflers by some debit-card its by some o f t h e f u n d s check, some by they cannot evidence before check, charging b e made at t r i a l . variance the Rofflers some until after Holding that the State presents erroneous. 17 exists with by a fatal between theft the State between the o f f e n s e charged i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t made allegedly stole two-party as t o w h e t h e r a f a t a l indictments evidence on t r a n s a c t i o n , a n d some b y c r e d i t - c a r d t r a n s a c t i o n . A determination the At the hearing motion to dismiss, the State p r o f f e r e d that the had r e c e i v e d cash, adduced at t r i a l ) . and t h e has presented variance exists and t h e evidence i t s evidence at trial i s 1090007 COBB, Chief dissenting To extent theft 1975, States that the satisfy without allegedly (concurring in stolen majority the the additional I opinion concur therefore, is in that i t i s now legal value of what reference to "lawful the Shubert the v. cited I do precedent has part and therein. not from a other have to dollar amount "in lawful United I concur 44 changed" discard States that more the the this the State taken thorough American in currency." that, the should analysis jurisdictions to a 100 specify theft See, App. I believe Court and approximately (Ala. Crim. Although believe Ala. the allegedly 2d 15-8-25, in required United § indictments only r a t i o n a l e supporting that So. of result. "times been 488 without authorities such precedent State, cases correct, in that language the necessary of holds stating with r e s u l t on t h i s p o i n t b e c a u s e t h e years result requirements explicitly currency," majority the in part). the charging Code Justice by e.g., 1986), result and is discard i t s of facts that and support action. With exchange regard i s now to the further essentially holding i r r e l e v a n t to 18 that the the medium validity of of an 1090007 indictment dissent. precedent simply charging without 3 of authority, specifying a the individual under not with unauthorized card or with such dollar medium believe equivalent theft, § the I amount am and Code t h e f t of information, under burdensome medium o f e x c h a n g e b e f o r e of e s t a b l i s h e d not persuaded 1975, the on of 4 without informs the theft to provide of 15-8-25. the t h e f t of the medium § theft that an offense. c a s h money i s n e c e s s a r i l y failure i . e . , the prejudicial i t i s unduly the respectfully sufficiently t h e f t of a check or card, must in charging exchange 15-8-25, A l a . that the of and I many y e a r s e l e c t r o n i c t r a n s f e r , or a debit substantially believe crime This holding also reverses specifying I do a of funds a an State to i t undertakes to deprive credit accused exchange, Further, by can be I do not specify the a person of S e e , e . g . , Ex p a r t e A i r h a r t , 477 So. 2d 979 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) , D e l e v i e v . S t a t e , 686 So. 2 d 1283 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , and H e n d e r s o n v . S t a t e , 520 So. 2 d 169 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1987). 3 "An indictment must s t a t e t h e f a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e o f f e n s e i n o r d i n a r y and c o n c i s e l a n g u a g e , w i t h o u t p r o l i x i t y o r r e p e t i t i o n , i n s u c h a m a n n e r as t o e n a b l e a p e r s o n o f common u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o know w h a t i s i n t e n d e d a n d w i t h t h a t d e g r e e o f c e r t a i n t y which w i l l enable the c o u r t , on c o n v i c t i o n , t o p r o n o u n c e t h e p r o p e r j u d g m e n t . I n no c a s e a r e t h e w o r d s ' f o r c e of arms' or ' c o n t r a r y to the form of the s t a t u t e ' n e c e s s a r y . " 4 19 1090007 his or her l i b e r t y not believe further order from that holding the m a j o r i t y that to properly that i n a prosecution opinion a l l mediums resolve f o r a f e l o n y . B e c a u s e I do this holding. 20 of case, i s required exchange t o make t h e are I respectfully equal in dissent