Opinion ID: 2532064
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the indictment lack specificity, subjecting Tucker to double jeopardy?

Text: ¶ 25. This is, perhaps, the Majority's strongest argument. Imprecise indictments leave open the opportunity to for second bites at the apple. Had the jury found Tucker not guilty, the State would have had rhetorical room to charge him with possession of the allegedly stolen blouses and blue jeans. However that rhetorical possibility also was present in Daniel v. State , in which we found a diamond ring, one mule and one horse, and one suit of clothes to be sufficient description of the property. [15] A neat calf was sufficient in Miller v. State , [16] and six sacks of ammonium nitrate was precise enough in Jones v. State. [17] ¶ 26. We cannot and should not require a perfect description of the spokes of metaphorical snowflakes to the exclusion of all other items. We require that the State describe the property with reasonable certainty. [18] I do not think that this description of Foot Gear's inventorya great deal of which was found in the defendant's possession is uncertain at all. And I suspect that, were a trial court to use the breadth of the indictment to subject Tucker to double jeopardy, we would call that hypothetical decision unreasonable. ¶ 27. Because the indictment instructed Tucker of the nature of the charges against him and so did not prejudice his preparation of a defense or subject him to double jeopardy, I dissent. CARLSON, P.J., RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ., JOIN THIS OPINION.