Validity of Indictment

State v. Matthews, No. M2021-01342-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 19, 2023). 

“Challenges to the validity of an indictment present questions of law and, thus, are reviewed de novo.” State v. Smith, 492 S.W.3d 224, 239 (Tenn. 2016) (citing State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Tenn. 1997)).

State v. Hancock, No. M2022-00483-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 12, 2023). 

Any challenge to the validity of an indictment presents a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. State v. Hill, 954 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Tenn. 1997). An indictment is constitutionally required to provide the accused with “the nature and cause of the accusation” being made against him/her. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Tenn. Const. art. I, § 9. Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-13-202, an indictment must present the facts in such a way that “enable[s] a person of common understanding to know what is intended.” This Court has deemed “an indictment is valid if it provides sufficient information (1) to enable the accused to know the accusation to which answer is required, (2) to furnish the court adequate basis for the entry of a proper judgment, and (3) to protect the accused from double jeopardy.” Hill, 954 S.W.2d at 727 (citing State v. Byrd, 820 S.W.2d 739, 741 (Tenn. 1991); VanArsdall v. State, 919 S.W.2d 626, 630 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995); State v. Smith, 612 S.W.2d 493, 497 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980)).

Indictments are reviewed from an “enlightened standpoint of common sense and right reason rather than from the narrow standpoint of petty preciosity, pettifogging, technicality or hair splitting fault finding.” Hill, 954 S.W.2d at 728 (quoting United States v. Purvis, 580 F.2d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 1978)). Since Hill, this Court has held on numerous occasions that an indictment meets statutory and constitutional requirements if it “achieve[s] the overriding purpose of [providing] notice to the accused,” noting the “relaxation of common law pleading requirements and its reluctance to elevate form over substance.” State v. Hammonds, 30 S.W.3d 294, 300 (Tenn. 2000); Crittenden v. State, 978 S.W.2d 929, 931 (Tenn. 1998); Ruff v. State, 978 S.W.2d 95, 99 (Tenn. 1998) (determining indictment for aggravated sexual battery sufficient without specifically specifying mental state). In fact, “specific reference to a statute within the indictment may be sufficient to place the accused on notice of the charged offense.” State v. Sledge, 15 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tenn. 2000) (citing State v. Carter, 988 S.W.2d 145, 149 (Tenn. 1999); Ruff, 978 S.W.2d at 97).

The validity of an indictment is a question of law and, therefore, our review is de novo. Hill, 954 S.W.2d at 727.