Opinion ID: 1598918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the court erred in failing to quash the indictment

Text: ¶ 32. Burns next contends that the trial court erred in failing to quash the indictment due to the fact that the indictment fails to set out the proper elements of the underlying crime of armed robbery. ¶ 33. In addressing this issue in Mackbee v. State , we said, On the merits, Mackbee's argument still fails because the indictment further read, contrary to and in violation of § 97-3-19(2)(e) of the Mississippi Code of 1972, which is the statutory provision for capital murder. Thus, the indictment was in compliance with § 99-17-20. See, Bullock v. State, 391 So.2d 601, 606 (Miss.1980); Bell v. State, 360 So.2d 1206, 1208-09 (Miss. 1978). This issue lacks merit. Mackbee v. State, 575 So.2d 16, 35 (Miss. 1990). ¶ 34. The issue now before the Court is identical to the issue raised in Mackbee. Burns' indictment contained the provision of the Mississippi Code he violated, the capital murder provision. Burns was indicted for capital murder while in the commission of armed robbery. He had adequate notice of the crime charged such that he would have been able to present a well prepared defense. There is no Mississippi case law that requires the indictment to list the elements of the underlying offense charged in a capital murder indictment when the underlying offense is armed robbery. ¶ 35. We find that since Burns was indicted with the underlying offense of armed robbery, and the indictment included the provision comprising a charge of capital murder, this issue lacks merit.