Opinion ID: 1386625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Indictment

Text: First, appellant Flanders contends that the Circuit Court committed error by denying his motion to dismiss Counts 4 and 11 of the indictment. Count 4 charged the appellant with grand larceny with regard to Reid's Auto Sales, [3] and Count 11 was the corresponding conspiracy charge. The appellant asserts that those Counts should have been dismissed because the use of the word approximately in Count 4, in relation to the value of the vehicles allegedly stolen, created an uncertainty thereby resulting in a denial of his right to be fully and plainly informed of the charges against him. The appellant relies upon State v. Criss, 125 W.Va. 225, 23 S.E.2d 613 (1942), which held that an allegation in an indictment, that a reel of stolen wire cable was of the approximate value of $50.00, was indefinite and rendered the indictment fatally defective. The indictment, in Criss, alleged that the defendant committed grand larceny by taking one reel of approximately three hundred feet of No. 2 parallel duplex wire cable ... of the approximate value of Fifty Dollars [.] By contrast, Count 4 herein states: That Matthew S. Flanders, on the _ day of July, 2002, in the said County of Roane, State of West Virginia, committed the offense of Grand Larceny, in that Matthew S. Flanders, did unlawfully, intentionally, knowingly and feloniously committed simple larceny of goods or chattels of the value of one thousand dollars or more, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner Reid's Auto Sales thereof, to-wit: one (1) 1993 Ford Explorer valued at approximately Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00); one (1) 1997 Pontiac Sunfire valued at approximately Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00); one (1) 1997 Chevy Monte Carlo valued at approximately Five Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($5,900.00); one (1) set of keys to a 1991 Pontiac Grand Prix; one (1) set of keys to a 1992 Chevy Cavalier; one (1) set of keys to a 1988 Jeep Cherokee; one (1) set of keys to a 1988 Ford Ranger; one (1) set of keys to a 1984 Ford truck; one (1) set of keys to a 1995 Dodge Neon; one (1) dealer plate # DUC2 1604; and one (1) dealer plate # DUC3 1604; with a grand total of Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred ($14,400.00) from the goods and chattels belonging to Reid's Auto Sales, in violation of the West Virginia Code 61-3-13(a), against the peace and dignity of the State. The Constitution of West Virginia, art. III, § 14, provides the accused with the right to be fully and plainly informed of the character and cause of the accusation. As this Court recognized in State v. Wade, 174 W.Va. 381, 384, 327 S.E.2d 142, 146 (1985), the requirements of that provision have been implemented in Rule 7(c)(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to that Rule, an indictment shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. The West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure have been in effect since 1981. In syllabus point 6 of State v. Wallace, 205 W.Va. 155, 517 S.E.2d 20 (1999), this Court held: An indictment is sufficient under Article III, § 14 of the West Virginia Constitution and W.Va. R.Crim. P. 7(c)(1) if it (1) states the elements of the offense charged; (2) puts a defendant on fair notice of the charge against which he or she must defend; and (3) enables a defendant to assert an acquittal or conviction in order to prevent being placed twice in jeopardy. Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Day v. Silver, 210 W.Va. 175, 556 S.E.2d 820 (2001). Moreover, as this Court observed in syllabus point 2 of State v. Miller, 197 W.Va. 588, 476 S.E.2d 535 (1996): Generally, the sufficiency of an indictment is reviewed de novo. An indictment need only meet minimal constitutional standards, and the sufficiency of an indictment is determined by practical rather than technical considerations. Syl. pt. 2, State v. Palmer, 210 W.Va. 372, 557 S.E.2d 779 (2001); syl. pt. 7, State v. Bull, 204 W.Va. 255, 512 S.E.2d 177 (1998). Here, the appellant was charged in Count 4 with grand larceny concerning the items taken from Reid's Auto Sales. An examination of Count 4 reveals that it substantially followed the provisions of the statute under which the appellant was charged, W.Va.Code, 61-3-13(a) (1994). See, n. 3, supra. Although the value of each of the vehicles was set forth as approximations, Count 4 began with the allegation, consistent with W.Va. Code, 61-3-13(a) (1994), that the appellant committed simple larceny of goods or chattels of the value of one thousand dollars or more. Moreover, alleging that the appellant intended to permanently deprive Reid's Auto Sales of the items, Count 4 then described the vehicles, setting forth the make, model and year of each vehicle and its approximate value. In the latter regard, the record indicates that all of the vehicles sold at Reid's Auto Sales were used, rather than new, vehicles. Count 4 concluded by stating that the various items taken from Reid's Auto Sales totaled $14,400.00. In its ruling, the Circuit Court expressed the opinion that, if one vehicle of approximate value had been the only item taken, a dismissal might have been warranted. The Circuit Court concluded, however, that, in view of the allegation that multiple vehicles were among the items taken, Count 4 was sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss. This Court agrees and finds the Criss case cited by the appellant not to be dispositive in these circumstances. In the more recent case of State ex rel. Day v. Silver, supra , this Court held in syllabus point 5: In order for an indictment for larceny to be sufficient in law, it must identify with specificity the particular items of property which are the subject of the charge by specifically describing the property, unless the property is incapable of identification as in cases involving fungible goods, United States currency or comparable articles. For the above reasons, this Court concludes that Count 4 sufficiently set forth the elements of grand larceny, put the appellant on notice of the charges against him and did not violate his protections against double jeopardy. Therefore, the appellant's assignment of error concerning Count 4 and the corresponding conspiracy charge in Count 11 is without merit.