Opinion ID: 1095294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: LAW I. Was the indictment sufficient to inform Morgan of the charge against him?

Text: ¶ 10. Morgan claims that the indictment against him was so vague and indefinite that it did not fairly inform him of the crime alleged against him. The indictment read: Beginning from on or about August 9, 1993 and continuing through November, 1996, in Forrest County, Mississippi, Gregory Alston, Scott Morgan, and Ike Farris, the defendants herein, did willfully, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously conspire and agree together and with the late Chancery Judge William Robert Taylor, the late Charles Morgan, and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to cheat and defraud the conservatorship of Jack Diamond out of property and money in excess of $250.00, by means which are in themselves criminal, or which, if executed, would amount to a cheat, or to obtain money or any other property or thing by false pretense, in violation of MCA 97-1-1(d), as amended.      The scheme consisted of obtaining payment, payment for fees and services which were not reasonable, necessary, or earned, including, but not limited to attorneys fees, conservator fees, and fees for the Guardian ad litem. The scheme further included payments to Scott Morgan, his friends, family and relatives for services, including but not limited to security services, which were not reasonable, necessary or earned. The scheme also included demands by Judge Taylor for payment of money to him for which he was not entitled nor authorized by law to receive. That all of the above conduct is in violation of MCA 97-1-1(d), as amended, MCA 97-1-1(f) and is against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi. ¶ 11. The accused has a constitutional right to be informed of the nature and material elements of the accusation filed against him. Burchfield v. State, 277 So.2d 623, 625 (Miss.1973). In order to be sufficient, the indictment must contain the essential elements of the crime with which the accused is charged. Hennington v. State, 702 So.2d 403, 407 (Miss. 1997). Rule 7.06 of the Mississippi Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice requires that an indictment contain a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and shall fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation. King v. State, 580 So.2d 1182, 1185 (Miss.1991). Nothing more is required. Additionally, an indictment which tracks the statutory language is generally sufficient to inform the accused of the charge against him. Cantrell v. State, 507 So.2d 325, 329 (Miss. 1987). ¶ 12. The indictment in this case fairly placed Morgan on notice that he was charged with conspiring with others to defraud the conservatorship of Jack Diamond. The indictment included the period of time involved, named four of the known alleged co-conspirators, and described the fraud as obtaining unreasonable or unearned payments or fees from the conservatorship and charging the conservatorship for unnecessary security. It tracked the language of Miss.Code Ann. § 97-1-1 (1994). The indictment sufficiently notified Morgan of the charge against him and enabled him to prepare a defense. This issue is without merit.