Opinion ID: 2781756
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment

Text: First, Bailey challenges the sufficiency of the indictment. Bailey concedes that his challenge is made for the first time on appeal, and therefore, our review is limited. As we held in United States v. Pena, 684 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2012): [W]hen a defendant challenges the adequacy of an indictment for the first time on appeal, this Court must find the indictment sufficient unless it is so defective that it does not, by any reasonable construction, charge an offense for which the defendant is convicted. . . . Thus, in some instances, an element may be inferred from the express allegations of the indictment. . . . Practical, rather than technical, considerations govern the validity of an indictment. Minor deficiencies that do not prejudice the defendant will not prompt this Court to reverse a conviction. . . . Where the defendant suffers no actual prejudice as a result of the indictment, and the indictment provides facts and the specific statute under which the defendant is charged, the [Court] will find the indictment sufficient. Id. at 1147-48 (internal quotations omitted); accord United States v. Adams, 83 F.3d 1371, 1375 (11th Cir. 1996) (In the posture of an appeal in which a challenge 2 Case: 14-10174 Date Filed: 02/24/2015 Page: 3 of 7 to the sufficiency of the indictment was raised for the first time on appeal, we concluded that the defendant had “suffered no actual prejudice as a result of this indictment,” and thus affirmed his conviction.). Bailey’s challenge to the indictment in this case has two parts. First, Bailey challenges Counts One through Four. With respect to these counts, he argues that the language of each of said counts is identical with the exception of the time frame during which the alleged crime occurred. Because there was overlap in those time periods, Bailey argues that he had insufficient factual information to tell which count charged the crime depicted in Government exhibits 1-4. Thus, he argues that he had insufficient notice to prepare his defense. He also argues that he would be unable to invoke the protections of double jeopardy in the event of a future prosecution. We reject Bailey’s arguments. As noted above, in light of our limited review, Bailey can prevail only if he could show he suffered actual prejudice as a result of the indictment. We conclude that Bailey cannot do this. It is undisputed that, well before trial, he knew precisely which of the four video images were charged in each count. He knew that Count One charged the crime depicted in Government’s exhibit 1, that Count Two charged the crime depicted in the Government’s exhibit 2, that Count Three charged the crime depicted in the Government’s exhibit 3, and that Count Four charged the crime depicted in the 3 Case: 14-10174 Date Filed: 02/24/2015 Page: 4 of 7 Government’s exhibit 4. Because the images on each of the four Government exhibits (which depicted the crimes charged in Counts One through Four) are distinctive, and readily distinguishable from the others, Bailey will have no trouble obtaining double jeopardy protection in the event of any future prosecution. In the second part of Bailey’s challenge to the indictment, Bailey challenges Count Five. He argues that it is defective because it fails to factually identify the specific image charged. We also reject this challenge. Count Five provides: The Grand Jury charges: Between on or about May 4, 2011, until on or about May 30, 2012, a more specific date being unknown to the Grand Jury, in or around Tuscaloosa County, within the Northern District of Alabama, and elsewhere, the defendant, MURRY MALONE BAILEY, did knowingly possess and access with intent to view a computer, computer disk, videotapes, and other material, to wit: a Dell Vastro 1500 laptop computer with serial number HY6KVD1, and two videotapes that contain an image of child pornography, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2256(8)(A), that has been mailed, and shipped and transported using a means and facility of interstate and foreign commerce, to wit: the internet, and that was produced using materials that have been mailed, and shipped and transported in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2252A(a)(5)(B). The indictment notified Bailey that the child pornography that he was charged with possessing appeared on a specifically identified computer and two videotapes that were in his possession at the time of his arrest. 4 Case: 14-10174 Date Filed: 02/24/2015 Page: 5 of 7 We conclude that Bailey’s challenge is without merit. As noted, our scope of review is limited. We cannot conclude that Bailey has demonstrated that he suffered actual prejudice as a result of the indictment. Well before trial, Bailey was aware of, and had actually viewed, the images that appeared on the computer and the two videotapes. Thus, he had ample notice of the charge against which he must defend. Moreover, the record of Bailey’s trial will reveal the images from the specifically identified computer and two videotapes that were introduced into evidence for the court to consider when determining whether Bailey possessed child pornography during the designated time frame. Thus, the record of Bailey’s trial will enable Bailey to invoke the protections of double jeopardy in any future prosecution. 1