Opinion ID: 1696930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Whether the Indictment Was Fatally Defective

Text: ¶ 45. Jordan asserts that the indictment erroneously charged him with depraved heart murder instead of manslaughter. This Court has held that [i]t is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system that a prosecutor is afforded prosecutorial discretion over what charge to bring in any criminal trial. Watts v. State, 717 So.2d 314, 320 (Miss. 1998). Therefore, we find this assertion to be completely devoid of merit. ¶ 46. Jordan further asserts that the indictment was fatally flawed because it did not include all the statutory language in the depraved murder statute. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(b) (Rev. 2006). The indictment did not include the following language from the statute: although without any premeditated design to effect death of any particular individual. A defendant may challenge the sufficiency of an indictment for the first time on appeal. Spicer v. State, 921 So.2d 292, 319 (Miss.2006) (citing State v. Berryhill, 703 So.2d 250, 253 (Miss.1997)). ¶ 47. An indictment is meant to furnish the defendants notice and a reasonable description of the charges against them so that they may prepare their defense. Spicer, 921 So.2d at 319 (citation omitted). It follows that an indictment is only required to have a clear and concise statement of the elements of the crime the defendant is charged with. Id. This Court has held that, as a general rule, an indictment which tracks the language of a criminal statute is sufficient to inform the defendant of the charge against him. Stevens v. State, 808 So.2d 908, 919 (Miss. 2002). ¶ 48. A review of the indictment in this case shows that it generally tracked the language of the statute and referenced Section 97-3-19(1)(b) of the Mississippi Code such that Jordan was on notice of the charge against him. Therefore, we find this argument to be without merit.