Nguyen v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-CT-00369-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-00369-SCT ; 2004-CT-00369-SCT ; 2004-KA-00369-COA ; 2004-KA-00369-COA ; 2004-KA-00369-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-16-2007 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Money laundering - Defective indictment - Section 97-23-101(3)(a) - Unlawful activity Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson, Graves and Lamar, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Randolph, J.; Smith, C.J., Joins In Part Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-09-2004 Appealed from: Rankin Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III District Attorney: David Byrd Clark Case Number: 15311 |
|
| Consolidated: 2004-CT-00368-SCT | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Johnson Quoc Nguyen |
Julie Ann Epps |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | Office of the Attorney General |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Money laundering - Defective indictment - Section 97-23-101(3)(a) - Unlawful activity |
| Summary of the Facts: | Two men and a woman were indicted for money laundering after law enforcement officials searched their vehicle and discovered a false gas tank containing more than $170,000 in cash. The driver and one of the passengers were convicted, and the other passenger was acquitted. The Court of Appeals reversed the passenger’s conviction, holding that the State did not meet its burden of connecting the passenger to the money. The Court of Appeals affirmed the driver’s conviction, holding that the indictment was not erroneous because it tracked the language of the statute. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Tran, the driver, argues that the indictment against him, which alleged he was transporting money derived from “some unlawful activity,” failed to disclose to him the nature of the alleged unlawful activity and was therefore legally insufficient. The trial court held that since the language in the indictment tracked the language in the statute, the defendants were adequately informed of the charges against them. Whether an indictment in the language of the statute is sufficient, or whether other words or acts are necessary to properly charge the commission of a crime is dependent upon the nature of the offense and the terms in which it is described by the statute. Tran’s indictment is no more informative than a hypothetical indictment which charges a defendant with entering a conspiracy to commit “some unlawful activity.” Section 97-23-101(3)(a) defines the term “unlawful activity” as any activity that constitutes a felony under federal or state law. Thus, Tran’s indictment avers that he knew the money he was transporting represented the proceeds of some felony under federal or state law. Forcing defendants indicted for money laundering to trial without first fairly informing them of the specific “unlawful activity” alleged, constitutes a clear deprivation of the rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article 3, Section 26 of the Mississippi Constitution; and Rule 7.06 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice. Although Tran’s indictment was defective, the error was harmless. Based on the civil forfeiture action which was filed prior to Tran’s indictment, he was clearly informed that the Sheriff’s Department deemed this money the proceeds of drug trafficking activities. Additionally, Tran admitted in an affidavit that “[t]he officers attempted during [the interrogation] to get me to say the money was used for drug purposes.” Thus, the defense had ample notice that the charge of money laundering was based on the State’s claim that the money was the product of drug trafficking. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
