Opinion ID: 1810383
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the indictment properly apprised starns of the nature and cause of the accusations against her.

Text: ¶ 17. Starns's indictment reads in pertinent part: PEGGY SLOAN STARNS in said County and State, on or about the 28th day of July, A.D., 1984 did wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, without authority of law and with deliberate design to effect death, kill and murder a human being, ANGELA SCHNOOR.... ¶ 18. An indictment must apprise a defendant of the nature and cause of the accusations against her. U.S. Const. amend. V; Miss. Const. art. 3, § 26. ¶ 19. The Mississippi Code instructs: In an indictment for homicide it shall not be necessary to set forth the manner in which or the means by which the death of the deceased was caused, but it shall be sufficient to charge in an indictment for murder, that the defendant did feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, kill and murder the deceased. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-7-37 (Rev.2000). ¶ 20. The Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules further provide: The indictment upon which the defendant is to be tried 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. An indictment shall also include the following: 1. The name of the accused; 2. The date on which the indictment was filed in court; 3. A statement that the prosecution is brought in the name and by the authority of the State of Mississippi; 4. The county and judicial district in which the indictment is brought; 5. The date and, if applicable, the time at which the offense was alleged to have been committed. Failure to state the correct date shall not render the indictment insufficient; 6. The signature of the foreman of the grand jury issuing it; and 7. The words against the peace and dignity of the state. URCCC 7.06 (2003). ¶ 21. Starns argues that her indictment did not apprise her of the nature and cause of the accusations against her because it did not follow Rule 7.06's plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged requirement. She also argues that Section 99-7-37's instruction [i]n an indictment for homicide it shall not be necessary to set forth the manner in which or the means by which the death of the deceased was caused should not be followed because it is inconsistent with Rule 7.06 and Rule 7.06 trumps pursuant to Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71 (Miss.1975), and Miss. R. Evid. 1103. Furthermore, she also argues that the instruction is unconstitutional because it does not track Miss. Const. art. 3, § 26's nature and cause of the accusation language. ¶ 22. This Court recently addressed this issue in Jones v. State, 856 So.2d 285 (Miss.2003), where the defendant alleged that his homicide indictment did not apprise him of the nature and cause of the accusations against him because it did not specifically state how he committed the crime. This Court held: [T]he defense is not entitled to notice of specific overt acts charged to have caused a murder. Accordingly, the statute [99-7-37] does not violate Jones's constitutional notice rights. Moreover, the record makes clear that Jones was not in any way prejudiced by the indictment in the preparation of his defense.    If the statute fully and clearly defines the offense, the language of the statute is sufficient to provide notice of the crime charged. We have repeatedly held that the manner or means employed in the commission of a crime need not be averred. Jones, 856 So.2d at 289 (citations omitted). ¶ 23. Pursuant to Jones, the indictment did apprise Starns of the nature and cause of the accusations against her. The indictment tracked § 99-7-37 and apprised Jones of the material elements of the statutory offense. Moreover, Starns has not shown that the indictment unduly prejudiced her. From the beginning, there was no question that Starns was being charged for the unlawful asphyxiation of Angela Schnoor. This issue is without merit. IV. WHETHER THE COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GRANT THE PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION, MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A NEW TRIAL IN THAT THE JURY VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE CRIMINAL AGENCY. ¶ 24. Starns finally argues that the trial court erred in denying her request for a peremptory instruction and her motion for acquittal or for a new trial. ¶ 25. This Court will not reverse a trial court's denial of a motion for acquittal unless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the verdict was not based on sufficient evidence. Pruitt v. State, 807 So.2d 1236, 1242-43 (Miss.2002). This Court will not reverse a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial unless, accepting the evidence that supports the verdict as true, the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Pruitt, 807 So.2d at 1242-43. ¶ 26. Starns was the only person with Angela when she stopped breathing. Starns said that she found Angela with her arm caught in the couch face down and that Angela smothered as a result. However, there were no bruises on Angela's arm, and the doctors who examined her and performed the autopsy, as well as the expert who examined the facts, all said Angela could not have died by having her arm caught in the couch. ¶ 27. Starns urged that an autopsy should not be done, and she became angry when she learned that one would be done. Dr. Mary Case testified that it was her opinion that Angela died as a result of homicide and not as a result of an accident or suicide. When asked about the report of Angela being found face down on the couch, her arm caught in the mechanism, and that causing her head to be positioned so that she could not breathe, Dr. Case testified: That is a story that is not a possibility. ¶ 28. Dr. LeRoy Riddick, the State Medical Examiner for the State of Alabama, co-signed an autopsy report that Dr. Gary Cumberland, another medical examiner, performed on Angela in 1984. Dr. Cumberland said he was led to believe that Angela died in a full-size hide-a-bed folding couch that rolls out into a full-size bed. He further stated that a photograph of the couch would have been important to him in determining the manner of death. ¶ 29. Dr. Riddick also testified that the reason given did not make good sense but that it was possible, however, that a four-year-old girl could have died in a folding couch operated by a spring mechanism where the seat could push up against the back of the couch. He said that the photographs of the couch admitted into evidence at trial did not depict the type of couch he had envisioned in 1984, and if he had seen the pictures of the couch in 1984 they would have affected his conclusions. ¶ 30. The verdict was based on sufficient evidence. The verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of evidence. The trial court correctly denied the peremptory instruction and motion for acquittal or a new trial. This issue is without merit.