Opinion ID: 1792134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the trial court err in denying Hersick's demurrer?

Text: ¶ 32. Hersick contends that the indictment was flawed because it failed to specify which form of attempted kidnaping was being charged. Hersick cites Conley v. State, 790 So.2d 773, 796 (Miss.2001) which discussed the statute: A plain reading of the statute leads to the sound conclusion that one may commit the crime of kidnaping either by secretly confining a victim or by confirming or imprisoning another against his or her will regardless of whether the confinement is secret. ¶ 33. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-53 (Rev.2000), provides for three instances of kidnaping: (1) Any person who shall without lawful authority forcibly seize and confine any other person, (2) inveigle or kidnap any other person with intent to cause such person to be secretly confined or imprisoned against his or her will, and/or (3) forcibly seize, inveigle or kidnap any child under the age of ten (10) years and secretly confine such child against the will of the parents or guardians or person having lawful custody of such child. ¶ 34. Hersick contends that, although the indictment accused him of attempted kidnaping, it failed to specify which kind of kidnaping he was attempting. Therefore, Hersick argues, the indictment failed to place him on notice of what crime against which he was to defend. Furthermore, he alleges that the indictment failed to allege that he intended to confine the victim, as required by statute. ¶ 35. The indictment specifically stated: Larry Vincent Hersick in George County, Mississippi, on or about February 25, 2001, did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously design and endeavor to commit the offense of attempted kidnaping, a felony denounced by Sections 97-1-7 and 97-3-53, Miss.Code of 1972 (as amended), in that he did intend to kidnap the victim; and did an overt act toward the commission thereof, to-wit: by grabbing the victim by the arm and pulling her approximately ten (10) feet from a sidewalk into the Wal-Mart parking lot; but he failed therein in that was able to jerk herself from the grasp and run to her mother, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi. ¶ 36. The indictment gave details of the alleged attempted kidnaping, including details of how the attempt failed. The trial court stated: I think the indictment is proper because it goes beyond just simply saying there was an intent to kidnap the victim. It describes those acts in clear and concise language as required by the rules, wherein it states that a victim was grabbed by the arm and pulled approximately 10 feet from the sidewalk into the parking lot, but that the kidnaping failed because she was able to jerk herself loose and run away. So I think that that satisfies the requirement that the essential elements of the crime be stayed, and clearly the State is proceeding under the forcibly seizing and confine portion of the statute, and I think that's evident readily apparent from the reading of the indictment, so I will deny the demurrer. ¶ 37. We find the indictment is not fatally flawed because it charged Hersick under two statutes. Nor is it fatally flawed because it failed to state which kind of kidnaping Hersick intended to commit. Hersick was on sufficient notice of the charge against him. Rule 7.06 of the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules states that an indictment shall be 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. Formal and technical words are not necessary in an indictment, if the offense can be substantially described without them. The indictment against Hersick states the essential facts, and fully notified him of the nature and cause of the accusation. We therefore find that this issue is without merit.