Opinion ID: 1689270
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the miscitation contained in the indictment rises to the level of plain error and requires reversal?

Text: ¶ 17. The indictment reads, without the formal requirements, that Whitney Glenn Ishee ... did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attempt to commit sexual battery upon C.G., a male child under the age of fourteen (14) years by asking the said C.G. to engage in fellatio and pointing to his penis, contrary to and in violation of Section 97-3-101, Miss.Code Ann. (1972). The statute referenced in the indictment sets forth the penalty for sexual battery, but not the elements of the crime. The proper charging statute would have been Section 97-3-95. Here, Ishee filed a demurrer to the indictment, as discussed above, however, he did not discuss this error. As stated earlier, this Court will generally not consider objections not raised below. See Patrick, 754 So.2d at 1196. Further, in this case Ishee has not raised this issue on appeal either. However, [t]his Court, on occasion when circumstances warranted, has noted the existence of error in trial proceedings affecting substantial rights of the defendants although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court or of this Court. Id. (quoting Grubb v. State, 584 So.2d 786, 789 (Miss.1991)). Thus, we must consider if Ishee's substantial rights were affected by this error. ¶ 18. An indictment serves to alert the defendant of the charge against him. Westmoreland v. State, 246 So.2d 487, 489 (Miss.1971). We have noted that there ought not to be ... insistence upon forms which are purely technical and surplusage with indictments. Id. (citations omitted). We have found that when an indictment cited the statute imposing the penalty rather than the statute containing the elements that the reference to the statute was mere surplusage in the indictment and the appellant could not have been prejudiced by this erroneous reference. White v. State, 169 Miss. 332, 153 So. 387, 389 (1934). ¶ 19. This Court has held that [i]f an indictment reasonably provides the accused with actual notice and it complies with Rule 2.05 of the Unif.Crim.R.Cir.Ct. Prac., it is sufficient to charge the defendant with the crime. McNeal v. State, 658 So.2d 1345, 1350 (Miss.1995) (citations omitted). Rule 2.05 of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice is now Rule 7.06 of the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules. Rule 7.06 requires that the indictment 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. URCCC 7.06 It is clear that the indictment charging Ishee fulfilled these requirements. Ishee was certainly on notice regarding what he was charged with. The indictment alerted Ishee that he was charged with attempted sexual battery, and it detailed the acts which the State intended to put on as evidence of Ishee's commission of the crime. ¶ 20. The defect in the indictment is not cause for reversal. It is procedurally barred, as Ishee did not object to it below, nor did he raise it on appeal to this Court. Further, it does not rise to the level of an error affecting Ishee's substantive rights.