Court Opinion

ID: 9594358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:29:20.990184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:03.918674
License: Public Domain

Justice MEYER
concurring.
I concur fully in both the reasoning and the result reached by the majority. I file this concurring opinion for the sole purpose of addressing an issue neither raised nor argued by the defendant, but addressed in some detail by the dissenting opinion.
*460The dissenting opinion states that “[b]y alleging in the indictments the factual basis by which the State would seek to prove the first degree sex offense, ie., their commission was aided and abetted by others, the prosecutor limited the State to that factual basis at trial even if the evidence might have supported other theories of guilt.” Thus, argues the dissent, the trial judge committed error by instructing the jury “that it could return verdicts of guilty as charged in all cases if, among other things, it found that defendant used a deadly weapon, or inflicted serious personal injury on Pruitt, or was aided and abetted by other persons.” I find this conclusion legally unsupportable.
Factual allegations unnecessary to an indictment for rape or sex offense should be treated as surplusage. See State v. Moore, 284 N.C. 485, 202 S.E. 2d 169 (1974); see also State v. Lewis, 58 N.C. App. 348, 293 S.E. 2d 638 (1982) (an averment in an indictment or warrant not necessary in charging the offense should be disregarded). In Moore, this Court was asked to consider whether the trial judge erred in charging the jury on both the theory of premeditation and deliberation and felony murder although the indictment specified only that the murder was committed with premeditation and deliberation. We upheld the instruction based on the fact that G.S. § 15-144, authorizing the short-form indictment for homicide, would support a verdict of murder in the first degree without further allegation of premeditation and deliberation or in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate a felony. This Court stated in Moore that “[a]ny allegations in a bill of indictment over and above that which is held sufficient may be treated as surplusage.” Id. at 493, 202 S.E. 2d at 174. We cited numerous cases in Moore in support of this conclusion and properly distinguished State v. Davis, 253 N.C. 86, 116 S.E. 2d 365 (1960), a case in which the indictment failed to allege malice. We had held in Davis that “[b]y specifically alleging the offense was committed in the perpetration of rape, the State confines itself to that allegation in order to show murder in the first degree.” Id. at 99, 116 S.E. 2d at 373. However, as explained in Moore,
Judge Campbell was correct in charging the jury in the Davis case that a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree could be rendered only upon a finding that Davis killed Mrs. Cooper in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate the crime of rape. Our holding in Davis that the State *461was confined to its allegation in the indictment that the killing occurred in the perpetration of rape was correct. This Court could have said, but did not say, the indictment failing to charge malice, required the State to make out its case of murder in the first degree upon a showing the killing was done in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate the crime of rape. The indictment, omitting malice, was insufficient to elevate the killing above the crime of manslaughter, except for the “felony murder" rule which Judge Campbell submitted to the jury.
Id. at 495, 202 S.E. 175.
Because the indictment in Moore fully complied with the requirements of G.S. § 15-144, it did not depend for its sufficiency upon additional factual allegations, and therefore this Court treated the additional factual allegations as surplusage.
The short-form indictment for homicide in G.S. § 15-144 is the model upon which G.S. § 15-144.1 (Essentials for a Bill of Rape) and G.S. § 15-144.2 (Essentials for a Bill of Sex Offense) were drafted. Just as we have held that an indictment for murder need not allege the theory or factual basis under which the State intends to proceed, see State v. Duncan, 282 N.C. 412, 193 S.E. 2d 65 (1972) (premeditation and deliberation); State v. Smith, 223 N.C. 457, 27 S.E. 2d 114 (1943) (felony murder), we have likewise held that indictments for rape or sex offense need not include averments (1) that the offense was perpetrated with a deadly weapon, (2) that the victim suffered serious personal injury, or (3) that the person who committed the offense was aided and abetted by one or more persons —theories under which the State might proceed to seek a first degree conviction. See State v. Whitfield, 310 N.C. 608, 313 S.E. 2d 790 (1984); State v. Roberts, 310 N.C. 428, 312 S.E. 2d 477 (1984); State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 309 S.E. 2d 203 (1983).
G.S. § 15-144 states that “it is sufficient in describing murder to allege that the accused person feloniously, willfully, and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder (naming the person killed). . . .” G.S. § 15-144.1 states that “it is sufficient in describing rape to allege that the accused person unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously did ravish and carnally know the victim, naming her, by force and against her will. . . .” G.S. § 15-144.2 states “it *462is sufficient in describing a sex offense to allege that the accused person unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously did engage in a sex offense with the victim, naming the victim, by force and against the will of such victim. . . .” Clearly, the reasoning we applied in Moore respecting the short-form indictment for murder applies with equal force to G.S. § 15-144.1 and -144.2, short-form indictments for rape and sex offense. That is, an indictment which meets the statutory requirements for sufficiency need not include additional allegations of fact or theory and, if included, these should be treated as surplusage. Furthermore, where the evidence supports several theories of guilt authorized by statute, the trial judge may instruct on more than one theory. See State v. Foust, 311 N.C. 351, 317 S.E. 2d 385 (1984).
The dissent argues that the short-form indictment for murder (without any statement of which theory will be relied upon) is sufficient only because it contains the magic saving language “with malice aforethought.” I argue that both G.S. § 15-144.1 and -144.2 contain comparable saving language. In G.S. § 15-144.1 the language is “unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously did ravish and carnally know” . . . “by force and against her will.” In G.S. § 15-144.2 the language is “unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did engage in a sex offense ... by force and against the will of such victim.” In the instant case, each of the indictments included the necessary statutory language that the defendant “unlawfully and wilfully did feloniously engage in a sexual act with Danny Pruitt by force and against that victim’s will.” Thus, under the authority of State v. Moore, whatever additional information that was included in the indictment is surplusage and should be treated as such. As there was evidence to support not only a theory of aiding and abetting, but also that the offense was committed by use of a deadly weapon or that the victim suffered serious bodily injury, the trial judge properly instructed on these theories.
Quite obviously the cases cited by the dissenting opinion in support of its conclusion are readily distinguishable. State v. Taylor, 301 N.C. 164, 270 S.E. 2d 409 (1980) and State v. Dammons, 293 N.C. 263, 237 S.E. 2d 834 (1977) involved indictments for kidnapping. In State v. Jerrett, 309 N.C. 239, 259, 307 S.E. 2d 339, 350 (1983) we noted that
*463The established rule is that an indictment will not support a conviction for a crime unless all the elements of the crime are accurately and clearly alleged in the indictment. State v. Perry, 291 N.C. 586, 231 S.E. 2d 262 (1977); State v. Taylor, 280 N.C. 273, 185 S.E. 2d 677 (1972). The Legislature may prescribe a form of indictment sufficient to allege an offense even though not all of the elements of a particular crime are required to be alleged. See, e.g., G.S. 15-144.1 (authorizing a short-form indictment for rape) and G.S. 15-144 (authorizing a short-form indictment for homicide). The Legislature has not, however, established a short-form indictment for kidnapping. Accordingly, the general rule governs the sufficiency of the indictment to charge the crime of kidnapping.
G.S. § 15A-644, under which indictments for kidnapping are now brought, unlike the short-form indictments authorized for homicide, rape and sex offense, requires that the indictment charge all the essential elements of the offenses, or with respect to statutory offense, the indictment will be sufficient as a general rule if it charges the offense in the language of the statute. See State v. Jerrett, 309 N.C. 239, 307 S.E. 2d 339; State v. Norwood, 289 N.C. 424, 222 S.E. 2d 253 (1976); State v. Lewis, 58 N.C. App. 348, 293 S.E. 2d 638. In fact, in Jerrett we held that in order to support a conviction for first degree kidnapping it was necessary to allege that the victim was not released in a safe place and was either sexually assaulted or physically harmed, G.S. § 14-39(b). In short, in order to support a conviction for first degree kidnapping the indictment must include information regarding the factual basis under which the State intends to proceed and, under the authority of Taylor and cases cited therein the State is limited to that factual basis at trial.1
The dissenting opinion also cites to State v. Thorpe, 274 N.C. 457, 164 S.E. 2d 171 (1968) as authority. In Thorpe we held that in a prosecution for first degree burglary upon an indictment charging that defendant broke and entered with a felonious intent to ravish and carnally harm the victim by force and against her will, *464the trial court erred in merely instructing the jury that they must find that the breaking and entering was done “with the intent to commit a felony,” it being necessary that the court charge on intent to commit a felony described in the indictment. Once again, I find Thorpe distinguishable. An indictment for first degree burglary, like that for kidnapping, requires specific allegations of fact to support a conviction. That is, the indictment must specify the particular felony which the defendant intended to commit at the time of the breaking and entering. State v. Norwood, 289 N.C. 424, 222 S.E. 2d 253. Having so specified, the State is limited to proof of that felony and it is error, although not necessarily prejudicial error, for the trial judge to instruct on a theory not alleged in the indictment.
Finally, I would add that although the information is available through a Bill of Particulars since the enactment of G.S. § 15-144.1 and -144.2, criminal defendants have consistently indicated a strong preference to be supplied in the indictment with information concerning the theory under which they will be tried. See State v. Whitfield, 310 N.C. 608, 313 S.E. 2d 790; State v. Roberts, 310 N.C. 428, 312 S.E. 2d 477; State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 309 S.E. 2d 203; State v. Lowe, 295 N.C. 596, 247 S.E. 2d 878 (1978). Although not legally required to do so, in this case the State responded by including in the indictment additional information respecting the most likely theory upon which it would seek a conviction for the first degree sex offense. It seems inconceivable to me that the State should thereby be penalized — told that it may accommodate the defendant’s perceived need for this information in an indictment rather than a Bill of Particulars, but it does so at the risk of being bound by its “election.”
Justices MITCHELL and Martin join in this concurring opinion.

. I would point out that while a trial judge may err in instructing on theories not alleged in an indictment for kidnapping, the error is not necessarily prejudicial. Whether the error in Taylor was prejudicial was not addressed in Taylor. My reading of that case suggests that, in fact, it was not.