Opinion
Cause No. MO-00-CR-146
March 12, 2001
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION
Before this Court is Defendant Scott Douglas Fuller's Motion to Quash Information, filed March 7, 2001. After due consideration of the law and facts, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant's Motion should be DENIED.
DISCUSSION
By Information filed October 17, 2000, Defendant is charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it a federal offense for a person who has been "convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" to "possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition" or "to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce." Defendant is also charged with 28 U.S.C. § 5861(d), which makes it a federal offense to receive and possess an unregistered firearm. Defendant asserts that the Information charging him with these two offenses is insufficient because it fails to state certain details of the offense such as the date of the Defendant's alleged prior felony conviction, and the location where the offense occurred. The Court finds these arguments unpersuasive.
The basic purpose of an indictment is to fairly inform the defendant of the charge against him so that he may prepare his defense. United States v. Fitzgerald, 89 F.3d 218, 222 (5th Cir. 1996); 1 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 122 (2nd ed. 1982). So long as the statute expressly charges the defendant with all of the essential elements of the offense, the Information is sufficient. United States v. Perry, 638 F.2d 862, 870-71 (5th Cir. 1981) (upholding the sufficiency of a "bare-bones" indictment). Here, the requisite elements of the offenses are alleged in the Indictment. In addition, sufficiency of the Indictment is further supported by Indictments citation to the statutes with which Defendant is charged with violating. United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, at 179 (5th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted) (holding that specific reference to the relevant criminal statute further supports finding that indictment was constitutionally sufficient).
The Court believes that Defendant's concern that the Indictment fails to identify the felony predicating the § 922(g)(1) violation is adequately addressed by the discovery practice of the Western District. In cases where a prior conviction affects the offense charged, the government provides defendants and their attorneys a copy of the defendant's record, which identifies any prior convictions. In a case involving multiple prior offenses, the government often does not nor is it required to disclose which conviction it will rely upon at trial. Generally, this is a result not of shrewd trial tactics but of the reality that the prosecution's ability to prove up a prior conviction is often determined by the efficiency and cooperation of other state agencies.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Indictment fairly informs Defendant as to the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare his defense.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Quash Indictment is DENIED.