Title: Westmoreland v. State
Citation: 246 So. 2d 487
Docket Number: 46118
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: January 25, 1971

246 So. 2d 487 (1971) A.F. WESTMORELAND v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 46118. Supreme Court of Mississippi. January 25, 1971. Rehearing Denied March 22, 1971. Roy O. Parker, Tupelo, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and P. Roger Googe, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. *488 SMITH, Justice: A.F. Westmoreland was convicted of the crime of false pretenses in the Circuit Court of Lee County and sentenced to serve a term of 7 years in the penitentiary, of which 2 1/2 years were suspended on good behavior. He appeals from that conviction and sentence. *489 The indictment on which Westmoreland was tried, omitting the formal part, was as follows: Neither the sufficiency nor the validity of the indictment was challenged in the trial court by demurrer, motion to quash or otherwise. Moreover, the motion for a new trial, made by Westmoreland following his conviction, did not assign, as a ground therefor, any defect or deficiency in the indictment. It is now argued, however, that appellant's motion for a directed verdict of not guilty should have been sustained because: (1) The indictment failed to state the ownership of the $8100 obtained from the bank, and (2) the proof was insufficient to show a violation of Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2150 (1956) as alleged in the indictment. In support of the first of these contentions (that the indictment failed to show ownership of the money), appellant relies on Langford v. State, 239 Miss. 483, 123 So. 2d 614 (1960), and the authorities therein cited. In Langford, the appellant had been indicted for embezzling two cows, and the indictment omitted to state to whom the cows belonged. The Court, in concluding to reverse, said: An indictment, of course, constitutes the "pleading" in a criminal case. Its office is to apprise the defendant of the charge against him in fair and intelligible language (1) in order that he may be able to prepare his defense, and (2) the charge must be laid with sufficient particularity of detail that it may form the basis of a plea of former jeopardy in any subsequent proceedings. There is, however, a trend away from the unnecessary redundancy and prolixity of former times. The requirements of specificity with respect to allegation of ownership demand neither a deraignment of title nor a statement in "direct terms" showing perfect title where ownership of the money or *490 property obtained reasonably appears from the whole indictment and there is nothing in the indictment to support or suggest any other reasonable conclusion. As stated by this Court in Neece v. State, 210 So. 2d 657, 659 (Miss. 1968), in quoting with approval language used in State v. Dodenhoff, 88 Miss. 277, 40 So. 641 (1906): In the case here, after identifying beyond question the false writing sold to the bank by appellant and by means of which, the indictment charges, he fraudulently obtained from the bank $8100, in money, the indictment continues: In Cohen v. State, 101 Ga. App. 23, 27-28, 112 S.E.2d 672, 676 (1960), the Court of Appeals of Georgia, speaking to a contention that an indictment insufficiently set out ownership of funds obtained by false pretenses, said: In State v. Timmerman, 88 Utah 481, 487, 488, 55 P.2d 1320, 1323, concurring opinion, 56 P.2d 1354 (1936), the Utah Supreme Court in discussing the question, said: In Midgley v. State, 29 Okl.Cr. 108, 232 P. 967 (1925), the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, in rejecting a contention that an information charging false pretenses was insufficient because it failed "to allege the ownership" (of the property obtained), said: In Ireton v. State, 29 Okl.Cr. 266, 272, 233 P. 771, 773 (1925) the Court said in discussing a similar question: We think the better reasoned view is that the allegations of an indictment for false pretenses, with respect to ownership of the money or property fraudulently obtained, may be sufficient without the use of direct words, where such ownership appears from a reasonable construction of the indictment as a whole. *492 After careful consideration of the indictment in the present case we have concluded that in charging that Westmoreland, sufficiently charged ownership by the Peoples Bank and Trust Company of the money obtained. The second of appellant's contentions involving the indictment is that the proof failed to show a violation of Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2150 (1956), referred to in the indictment, and for that reason he was entitled to a directed verdict of not guilty. Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2150 (1956) actually is a continuation of and dependent upon, section 2149, which precedes it. Section 2149 defines the crime of false pretenses, and section 2150 merely adds another grade of the same offense for which it provides a more severe penalty when it is committed with the additional elements there enumerated. These sections are as follows: In 41 Am.Jur.2d Indictments and Informations section 88 (1968) it is stated: In 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 138 (1944), the rule is stated thus: In Harper v. United States, 27 F.2d 77, 79 (8th Cir.1928), the Court said: In White v. State, 169 Miss. 332, 338, 153 So. 387, 388 (1934), in rejecting a contention that an indictment was defective because it contained an incorrect citation of a statute alleged to have been violated, this Court said: In the case now before us the attention of the trial court was not drawn to this matter in any way. The question was not raised either by demurrer, motion to quash, or in appellant's motion for a new trial made following his conviction. As in other pleadings, the allegations of fact control as against legal conclusions of the pleader. We have concluded that the indictment in this case sufficiently charged facts which constituted the crime of false pretenses as defined by Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2149 (1956). The proof overwhelmingly supported the charge against appellant, as laid in the indictment. However, it was error to impose sentence under the provisions of Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2150 (1956), since the facts charged in the indictment and shown by the proof do not show that the commission of the offense was accompanied by the circumstances necessary to bring it within that section. Other matters assigned as error have been examined and considered and are without merit. The conviction of appellant of the crime of false pretenses (as defined in Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2149 [1956]) is affirmed, the sentence imposed under section 2150 is set aside, and the case is remanded for imposition of sentence as provided by section 2149. Conviction of appellant of the crime of false pretenses (as defined in Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2149 [1956]) affirmed, the sentence imposed under section 2150 set aside, and the case remanded for imposition of sentence as provided by section 2149. GILLESPIE, P.J., and PATTERSON, INZER and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur. INZER, Justice: A majority of the justices of this Court are of the opinion that the Petition for Rehearing in this case should be denied, and it is therefore, denied. However, Justices Rodgers, Brady, Patterson and the writer are of the opinion that it should be granted and dissent from the denial of the petition, for the reason that the decision in this case fails to follow the plain holding in several cases heretofore decided by this Court. *494 Appellant in his petition for a rehearing correctly points out that in deciding this case, we did not follow the case law of this state with respect to the allegation of direct ownership of property alleged to have been obtained by the appellant from the bank. In Hampton v. State, 99 Miss. 176, 54 So. 722 (1911), this Court said: In State v. Hubanks, 99 Miss. 775, 56 So. 163 (1911), the trial court sustained a demurrer to the indictment which, omitting the formal parts, stated: This Court held that the indictment failed to charge the ownership of the money obtained from the corporation and that it was defective for this reason. In comparing what is said in the foregoing indictment concerning the ownership of the property, we find no material difference in these allegations than those contained in the indictment in the case before us. It has the following charge relative to the ownership of the property. If the indictment in Hubanks was defective for failure to charge the ownership of the money, the indictment in the present case is certainly defective. It is clear that this Court held in Hubanks that the ownership of the money or property alleged to have been obtained by false pretense had to be directly charged and could not be inferred by a construction of the indictment as a whole. In Langford v. State, 239 Miss. 483, 123 So. 2d 614 (1960), the indictment charged, omitting the formal parts: This Court said in regard to this indictment: *496 We are unable to see any material difference in the charge in the foregoing indictment relative to the ownership of the property and the charge in the indictment in the present case. We affirmed the decision in Langford in Meyer(s) v. State, 193 So. 2d 728 (Miss. 1967), by saying: We have departed from Langford without overruling it, as we stated must be done. The opinion in this case seems to indicate that the appellant waived his right to challenge the validity of the indictment by failure to raise this question in the trial court. Appellant made a motion for a directed verdict after the state rested, and he requested a peremptory instruction directing the jury to find him not guilty after both sides had rested. He also filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. It is true he did not specifically point out to the trial court the fatal defect in the indictment, but this was not necessary. In Crosby v. State, 191 Miss. 173, 2 So. 2d 813 (1941), the appellant was convicted on the charge of having burglarized "a certain building commonly called a store building in which there was then and there kept for use and safety money, tobacco and other articles of merchandise and other valuable things of Mrs. Thelma Hicks [there situated]." The appellant failed to demur to the indictment but requested the court to peremptorily instruct the jury to find him not guilty at the conclusion of all the evidence. There was also a motion for a new trial, but the insufficiency of the indictment to charge the ownership of the building alleged to have been burglarized was raised for the first time in this Court. This is the same situation as we have in the case before us. This Court held that the failure to properly charge the ownership of the building went to the very essence of the offense charged, and the fatal defect was not waived by the appellant's failure to demur to the indictment. In conclusion this Court stated: Since the failure to properly charge the ownership of the money obtained from the bank is an essential element of the offense attempted to be charged against the appellant, he could raise this question for the first time in this Court. The reason for this rule is that a person being tried for a crime *497 is presumed to be innocent until he has been convicted after being charged by an indictment which charges him with all the essential elements of the offense for which he is being tried. When an indictment fails to charge an essential element of the offense, its validity may be questioned for the first time in this Court. We are unable to agree that the indictment in a criminal case is a mere "pleading". Article III, Mississippi Constitution § 27 (1890) requires an indictment before any person can be prosecuted on a felony charge. The indictment is a written accusation or a charge against one or more persons of a crime, and it must be presented on oath by a legally constituted grand jury. In order for an indictment to be valid, all the formal prerequisites must be complied with, including all the constituent elements of the crime attempted to be charged. Under the law of this state, the failure to properly charge any essential element of the crime is a fatal defect and cannot be amended except by consent of the grand jury returning the indictment. The opinion in this case recognizes that the ownership of property obtained by false pretense must be charged, but what it fails to recognize is that under the former decisions of this Court it must be directly charged. Furthermore, this is a general rule with few exceptions. In 41 Am.Jur.2d, Indictments and Presentment § 146 (1968), it is said: We are not in accord with the statement in the majority opinion that the recent view that the allegations of an indictment for false pretense with respect to ownership of money or property fraudulently obtained may be sufficiently charged without direct words, where such ownership appears from a reasonable construction of the indictment as a whole, is the correct view. One of the reasons why the ownership of the property or money should be directly charged is so it may form the basis of a plea of former jeopardy in any subsequent proceeding. It is obvious in this case that appellant could be indicted again under the same statement of facts set out in the indictment with an additional charge that the $8,100 obtained from the bank was the property of someone else, and if the proof sustained such a charge, his present conviction would not constitute former jeopardy under our law. This Court follows the doctrine of stare decisis and under this doctrine we follow our former decisions, unless such decisions are manifestly wrong and mischievous in their results. If the decisions in Hubanks, Langford and Meyer(s), supra, are manifestly wrong and mischievous, which they are not, we should say so and overrule them, otherwise we should adhere to them and sustain this petition for a rehearing. Appellant in making his defense to the charge against him was entitled to rely upon the foregoing decisions, and our failure to adhere to these decisions deprives him of a valuable right. It is our considered opinion that this Court was in error in failing to reverse this case and for the reasons *498 stated the petition for rehearing should be granted. Petition for rehearing denied. ETHRIDGE, C.J., GILLESPIE, P.J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON and HARPER, JJ., concur. RODGERS, BRADY, PATTERSON and INZER, JJ., dissent.