Opinion ID: 1660788
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was the trial court in error in overruling turner's motion to quash the indictment?

Text: ¶ 16. Turner contends that the indictment against him failed to charge an essential element of the crime when it substituted the word unlawfully for the phrase without the authority of law, making it fatally defective, and that the trial court was in error when it overruled his motion to quash the indictment. ¶ 17. Turner was indicted for depraved-heart murder in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(b), which states: (1) The killing of a human being without the authority of law by any means or in any manner shall be murder in the following cases: (b) When done in the commission of an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved heart, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual; Turner's indictment correctly referenced the depraved-heart murder statute, but substituted the word unlawfully in the place of without the authority of law. ¶ 18. Turner points to Edwards v. State, 737 So.2d 275 (Miss.1999) for support that the indictment against him failed to charge him with an essential element of the crime. Edwards had been indicted for killing two people while engaged in the crime of armed robbery, in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19(2)(e). Edwards, 737 So.2d at 293. On appeal, Edwards asserted that his conviction and sentence should be reversed because the instructions given did not comport with the indictment against him. Id. at 291. The indictment included the term without authority of law as found in the statute, but the instruction[s] failed to require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the killings were without authority of law. Id. at 293. This Court determined that this omission in the instructions amounted to a substantive change in the indictment and that Edwards was prejudiced by the amendment occurring at such a late date. Id. This Court stated that `[w]ithout authority of law' is a statutory element of capital murder and accordingly, it should have been contained within the instructions. Id. at 294. This Court found that the trial court committed reversible error and remanded for a new trial. Id. ¶ 19. Turner's reliance on Edwards is misplaced. The present case does not concern an omission of essential statutory language in jury instructions, as found in Edwards, but rather if using the term unlawfully in the place of without authority of law in the indictment resulted in Turner not being charged with an essential element of the crime. ¶ 20. Replacing without the authority of law with unlawfully in the indictment did not fail to charge Turner with an essential element of the crime of depraved-heart murder as it is set out in Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(b). A common sense analysis of the definition of unlawfully, similar to the analysis of `[w]ilfully or willfully' and `intentionally' found in Lester v. State, 692 So.2d 755, 789-90 (Miss.1997), overruled on other grounds, Weatherspoon v. State, 732 So.2d 158, 162 (Miss.1999), shows that without the authority of law is synonymous with unlawfully and that they are interchangeable. Black's Law Dictionary defines unlawful as not authorized by law; illegal. Black's Law Dictionary 1536 (7th ed.1999). Webster's defines unlawful as not lawful: contrary to or prohibited by law: not authorized or justified by law: not permitted or warranted by law. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2502 (1986). The word unlawfully and the phrase without the authority of law are interchangeable. ¶ 21. The trial court did not err in overruling Turner's motion to quash the indictment. This issue is without merit.