Opinion ID: 2533183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Failure to Include Aggravating Circumstances in Indictment

Text: ¶ 183. The indictment against Pitchford stated that on or about the 7th day of November 2004, in Grenada County, Mississippi and within the jurisdiction of this Court, while acting in concert with another or while aiding, abetting, assisting or encouraging another, did willfully, feloniously, intentionally, without authority of law and with or without the deliberate design to effect death, kill and murder Reuben Britt, a human being, while engaged in the felony crime of ARMED ROBBERY, as set forth in section 97-3-79 of MISS. CODE ANN. and in violation of section 97-3-19(2)(e) MISS. CODE ANN. as amended, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi. ¶ 184. Relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey [124] and Ring v. Arizona , [125] Pitchford argues that the indictment failed to charge all elements necessary to impose the death penalty. This Court repeatedly has held that these cases have no application to Mississippi's capital murder sentencing scheme. [126] As this Court recently stated: This Court repeatedly has rejected this type of argument. We have held that Apprendi and Ring address issues wholly distinct from the present one, and in fact do not address indictments at all. The purpose of an indictment is to furnish the defendant with notice and a reasonable description of the charges against him so that he may prepare his defense. An indictment is required only to have a clear and concise statement of the elements of the crime with which the defendant is charged. Under Mississippi law, the underlying felony that elevates the crime to capital murder must be identified in the indictment along with the section and subsection of the statute under which the defendant is being charged. In addition, [o]ur death penalty statute clearly states the only aggravating circumstances which may be relied upon by the prosecution in seeking the ultimate punishment. When Goff was charged with capital murder, he was put on notice that the death penalty might result, what aggravating factors might be used, and the mens rea standard that was required. [127] ¶ 185. Pitchford argues this Court's previous holdings are clearly erroneous in light of Kansas v. Marsh [128] because, according to Pitchford: [O]n the way to reaching its conclusion the Court compared the Kansas scheme to the Arizona scheme and found them essentially the same. Mississippi's scheme is indistinguishable from Kansas. Thus the position that Ring v. Arizona has no application to Mississippi's scheme, is incorrect. ¶ 186. We find Marsh doesn't apply and this argument has no merit.