Opinion ID: 1060565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: wyatt's indictment

Text: Wyatt was indicted for attempted first-degree murder. His indictment states in pertinent part: that WILLIAM TERRY WYATT on the 7th day of March, 1994, in Cumberland County, Tennessee, and before the finding of this indictment, did unlawfully, intentionally, deliberately and with premeditation attempt to kill Billie Carey in violation of T.C.A. XX-XX-XXX. . . . The indictment makes no reference to the attempt statute's numbered subsections nor does it specify a specific act or course of conduct constituting the attempt to kill. The Sixth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 9 of the Tennessee Constitution guarantee the accused the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. U.S. Const. amend. 6, 14; Tenn. Const. art. I, § 9; see also Hill, 954 S.W.2d at 727. We have consistently interpreted these constitutional provisions to require that an indictment: 1) provide notice to the accused of the offense charged; 2) provide the court with an adequate ground upon which a proper judgment may be entered; and 3) provide the defendant with protection against double jeopardy. Id.; State v. Byrd, 820 S.W.2d 739, 741 (Tenn.1991); State v. Pearce, 7 Tenn. (Peck) 66, 67 (1823); see also Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974). The form of an indictment is further governed by statute. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-13-202 (1997). Section 202 requires that an indictment state the facts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without prolixity or repetition, in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended, and with that degree of certainty which will enable the court, on conviction, to pronounce the proper judgment. Id. Prolixity means [t]he unnecessary and superfluous statement of facts in pleading or in evidence. Black's Law Dictionary 1378 (4th ed.1951). We consider the sufficiency of Wyatt's indictment with these constitutional and statutory principles in mind. We conclude that the indictment in this case satisfies these minimum requirements. Clearly Wyatt was placed on notice that he was charged with the intentional, deliberate and premeditated attempt to kill the named victim on a date certain. The indictment was also sufficient to place the trial court on notice that a judgment and sentence for attempted first-degree murder were proper upon conviction. Finally, by expressly stating that the attempt to kill was made against a specific victim on a date certain, the indictment offers Wyatt double jeopardy protection from any future charge of attempted murder against that victim on that date. Though the language did . . . attempt to kill is a general description, especially in light of the testimony at the preliminary hearing that Wyatt committed multiple acts against the victim which the State could have relied upon to obtain a verdict, this language alleges an act as required by the criminal attempt statute and was sufficient to notify Wyatt of the accused crime, to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court, and to protect against double jeopardy. Hill, 954 S.W.2d at 727. Because a defendant may make jurisdictional challenges to an indictment at any stage of the proceeding, Tenn.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2), we take this opportunity to encourage the State to charge the crime of attempt in such a way that informs the defendant of the precise act or acts against which he is being called upon to defend. For example, it might have been prudent to charge that Wyatt had attempted to kill the victim by firing several gunshots or by hitting the victim about the face and head until she was unconscious. In this case, considering that (1) multiple acts formed the basis of the charge; (2) that there are multiple subsections to the criminal attempt statute; and (3) that Wyatt's indictment failed to specify which subsection under which the State intended to proceed, and further, (4) given the nature of the criminal attempt statute, the defendant would have been well-advised to move for a bill of particulars pursuant to Tenn.R.Crim.P. 7(c). See also State v. Speck, 944 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tenn.1997) (holding that the trial judge correctly found that additional information was necessary to assist the defendant in preparing for trial, and correctly ordered the prosecution to supplement the skeletal charge contained in the indictment.). However, we leave this issue to be resolved by the trial courts, who are best qualified to make these determinations on a case-by-case basis.