Opinion ID: 2532064
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the indictment lack specificity so as to prejudice Tucker's ability to prepare a defense?

Text: ¶ 22. The major purpose of any indictment is to furnish the accused a reasonable description of the charges so an adequate defense may be prepared. [9] I fail to see how greater specificity would assist Tucker in his preparation of a defense. The Majority is unable to articulate how greater specificity would assist Tucker in his preparation of a defense. Whether or not blue jeans are athletic apparel [10] has no discernable impact on Tucker's preparation of his defense. ¶ 23. The Majority makes hay of a suggestion in Nguyen that the indictment in that case should have contained limiting modifiers. In Nguyen, we quashed an indictment which charged that the defendants had feloniously received 114 items, including televisions, C.D. players, VCR's, cameras, tools and microwaves... the personal property of multiple owners [.] [11] In considering whether an indictment is fatal if it does not state who owned the allegedly stolen property, [12] we signalled that such a flaw was a factor in determining the precision of an indictment as much as how many categories of goods were listed. We also noted the defects of the inclusive language [13] in the indictment. The defendants in Nguyen were on notice only that they were accused of stealing 114 objects from a class of persons that, rhetorically, could have been just as large. ¶ 24. In this case, the class of property identified in the indictment is limited to the athletic apparel owned personally by Haresh Khiantani in his role as owner of Foot Gear. While the Majority argues that the indictment is insufficient because blue jeans are not athletic apparel, the defendant had garbage bags full of brand new clothes and lines of new white shoes in his residence when he was arrested. [14] By the Majority's logic, a defendant indicted for absconding with a great amount of groceries from the Piggly Wiggly can convince us to review his indictment because he stole an unindicted quantity of aluminum foil in addition to a great amount of groceries.