Robert Taylor v. State ( 1997 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON FILED
April 3, 1997
ROBERT LEE TAYLOR, )
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
) Appellate C ourt Clerk
Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9701-CC-00019
)
vs. ) LAKE COUNTY
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. 96-7578
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the
judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The
case before this Court represents an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the
petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The record was filed on January 14,
1997, and the petitioner filed his brief on January 22, 1997. The petitioner was
originally indicted for first degree murder in April 1981, and was convicted of the same
in August 1982. In the present appeal, the petitioner, relying in part upon State v.
Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 20, 1996),
contends the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment failed to
allege the mens rea of the offense charged.
Having reviewed the state’s motion in light of the petitioner’s response
and the entire record on appeal, we conclude that the motion is well-taken and should
be granted. The trial judge dismissed the petitioner’s petition stating that “[a]llegations
concerning the insufficiency of an indictment are not subject to habeas corpus relief.” It
is well established that challenges to the sufficiency of an indictment cannot be tested
in a habeas corpus proceeding. See Haggard v. State, 475 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1971); Brown v. State, 445 S.W.2d 669, 674 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1969). A
panel of this Court recently held the same in a capital case. Barber v. State, No.
01C01-9408-CR-00281 (Tenn. Crim. App., Feb. 23, 1995).
Nonetheless, we have considered the substance of the petitioner’s claim
and determine it to be without merit. Hill represents a direct appeal from a case
involving an indictment rendered subsequent to the 1989 revisions to the Criminal
Code. Conversely, the appeal in the present case stems from a denial of a petition for
writ of habeas corpus and involves an indictment issued prior to the 1989 changes in
the Code. The opinion in Hill was based upon this Court’s interpretation of T.C.A. § 39-
11-301(c), which was enacted in 1989. That statute provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]
culpable mental state is required within this title unless the definition of the offense
plainly dispenses with a mental element.” Prior to 1989, however, the Criminal Code
did not contain a comparable statute. Accordingly, the decision in Hill does not control
our review of the issue raised herein.
At the time of the offense in this case, first degree murder was defined as
“[e]very murder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or by other kind of willful,
deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing, or committed in the perpetration of, or
attempt to perpetrate, [one of the enumerated felonies, including robbery].” T.C.A. §
39-2402 (1981 supp.). The indictment at issue before us charged that the petitioner
“unlawfully, feloniously, willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and maliciously did kill and
murder [the victim while committing armed robbery].” This language was sufficient
under the law as it existed at the time. As noted above, the Criminal Code did not
contain a provision similar to § 39-11-301(c) (1989). The statutory requirements for an
indictment were found in § 40-1802 (now § 40-13-202 (1990)), which provided simply
that:
The indictment must state the facts constituting the offense in
ordinary and concise language, without prolixity or repetition, in such a
manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is
intended, and with that degree of certainty which will enable the court, on
conviction, to pronounce the proper judgment.
Furthermore, in Campbell v. State, 491 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Tenn. 1973)
(emphasis supplied), while addressing the sufficiency of an indictment charging the
offense of murder, our Supreme Court stated the following:
2
While it seems clear that the indictment in Witt was insufficient in
that it failed to charge an element, that the murder was committed
unlawfully, in either the language of the statute or common law or words
of equivalent import, the decision is confusing because of the language,
‘fatally defective in omitting the charge that the offense was committed
feloniously, or with malice aforethought; and containing no words of
equivalent import.’ It is clear, however, that had the indictment used the
words ‘feloniously’ or ‘unlawfully’, it would have been sufficient.
We agree with this proposition. By containing the words found in the language of the
statute, the indictment at issue here sufficiently apprised the appellant of the offense
charged under the law at the time, and is therefore valid. Thus, the petitioner’s attack
must fail.
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to Rule
20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, that the judgment of the trial court
dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed. Costs of this appeal shall
be assessed against the petitioner.
Enter, this the ___ day of March, 1997.
__________________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
__________________________________
JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
__________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
3