Opinion ID: 2559985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tracks Statutory Language

Text: In Zugehoer v. State , [11] this Court considered a challenge to an indictment for Home Improvement Fraud, [12] where the defendant alleged for the first time on appeal that he was improperly charged with the intent required in section 841(b) rather than 841(a). The Court held that there was no plain error because: The indictment tracked the statutory language of Section 916(b)(4) and alleged the requisite intent under Section 841(a). Therefore, the indictment gave [the defendant] proper notice of the charges against him and properly stated the charges and intent under the statute. [13] Mott's indictment included all of the elements of New Home Construction Fraud. Mott's indictment tracked the statutory language of sections 841(b) and 917(b)(2). [14] Section 841(b) prohibits legally receiving and exercising control over another's property (here, U.S. Currency) and fraudulently converting it. Section 917(b)(2) prohibits receiving payments under a new construction contract and failing to use the payments for the reasons identified in the contract and/or diverting the payments to a use other than construction of the dwelling. We hold that it was not plain error for the indictment to omit the dollar amounts that were not included in the definition of the offense.