IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI STATE OF MISSISSIPPI v. NO._16-0-837 ED ROBERT SCHULER SMITH and ri JAMIE K. MCBRIDE SFP 21 2016 DEFENDANTS ‘ZACK WALLACE, CIRCUIT CLERK CO-DEFENDAN fy JAMIE K, 2 MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT COMES NOW, Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, by and through his attorney of record and files this his Motion to Quash the Indictment in the within Cause, and would show unto this honorable Court the following, to-wit: FACTS 1, On September 7, 2016, a Hinds County Grand Jury returned a two count indictment (Exhibit A) against Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, alleging that said Co- Defendant did commit the crimes conspiracy and hindering prosecution in violation of §97-1-1 and 97-9-105 of the Mississippi Code of 1972. In particular such indictment alleges that ‘MeBride conspired with Co-Defendant Robert Smith and Ivon Johnson to hinder the prosecution of Christopher Butler in Hinds County Cause Numbers 12-0-452 & 12-0-831 (Count One) and in Hinds County Cause Numbers 16-0-050 & 16-0-275 (Count Two). ‘The within Cause was presented to the Hinds County Grand Jury by the Mississippi Attomey General’s Office and such office is prosecuting the within matter. 2, Atal times alleged herein, Co-Defendant Robert Shuler Smith was acting as the duly elected District Attorney for the Seventh Circuit Court District of Mississippi, which district encompasses Hinds County Mississippi.3 At all times alleged herein, Co-Defendant Jamie K. McBride was serving the Hinds County Dis authorized by§25-31-5 Miss. Code Ann. (Exhibit B). Attorney as a full time Legal Assistant, Assistant District Attomey, as 4, Atall times alleged herein, alleged Co-Conspirator Ivon Johnson was employed as a full time Assistant District Attorney with the Hinds County District Attorney's Office. On and about July 28, 2016, Ivon Johnson pleaded guilty, via a bill of information, in the United States District Court, Southern Division, to the crime of conspiracy, a felony. According to the bill of information, Ivon Johnson utilized his position as an Assistant District Attorney in. Hinds County, Mississippi, to accept bribes in exchange for lowering criminal defendant’s felony bonds, On information and belief, at all times alleged herein, Ivon Johnson was acting as an undercover informant, at the Hinds County District Attomey’s Office, on behalf of and at the bequest of the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office. Alleged Co-Conspirator, Ivon Johnson has not been charged in the within Cause. 5. Atal times alleged herein, Christopher Butler has been in pretrial incarceration and has been incarcerated in the custody of Hinds County, Mississippi 6. On April 12, 2012, in Hinds County Cause Number 12-0-452, (Exhibit C), a Hinds County Grand Jury retumed an indictment against Christopher Butler alleging that he possessed marijuana, a controlled substance, in violation of §41-29-139 Miss. Code Ann... Hinds County Cause Number 12-0-452 was presented to the Hinds County Grand Jury by the Hinds County District Attorney's Office and the Hinds County District Attomey’s Office is prosecuting that cause. Hinds County Cause Number 12-0-452 is currently on Hinds County Circuit Judge Jeff Weill’s active Cireuit Court docket. 7. On July 18, 2012, in Hinds County Cause Number 12-0-831, (Exhibit D), a Hinds County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Christopher Butler alleging that_he possessed marijuana, a controlled substance, in violation of §41-29-139 Miss. Code Ann... Hinds County Cause Number 12-0-831 was presented to the Hinds County Grand Jury by the Hinds County District Attorney’s Office and the Hinds County District Attomey’s Office is prosecuting,that cause, Hinds County Cause Number 12-0-831 is currently on Hinds County Cireuit Judge Jeff Weill’s active Circuit Court docket. 8. On April 7, 2016, in Hinds County Cause Number 16-0-275, (Exhibit E) a Hinds County Grand Jury retumed a two count indictment against Christopher Butler alleging that he committed the crimes of false pretenses and fraud by mail in violation of §97-17-39 and §97-19- 83 Miss. Code Ann, respectively. Hinds County Cause Number 16-0-275 was presented to the Hinds County Grand Jury by the Mississippi Attorney General's Office and the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office is prosecuting that cause. Hinds County Cause Number 16-0-275 is currently on Hinds County Circuit Judge Jeff Weill’s active Circuit Court docket. 9. On December I, 2015, in Hinds County Cause Number 16-0-050 a Hinds County Grand Jury retuned an indictment against V.S. alleging that he committed a felony crime. (The Indictment in Hinds County Cause Number 16-0-050 has not been served on V.S. and therefore is not public record.) Hinds County Cause Number 16-0-050 was presented to the Hinds County Grand Jury by the Hinds County District Attomey’s Office and the Hinds County District Attorney's Offi on Hinds County Circuit Judge Winston Kidd’s active Circuit Court docket. is prosecuting the same. Hinds County Cause Number 16-0-050 is currently THE INDICTMENT IN THIS CAUSE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND MUST AS A MATTER OF LAW BE QUASHED Counts One and Two, of the Indictment in the within Cause, fail to charge a necessary element of the crime of hindering prosecution and as a consequence thereof are not legally sufficient and as such must be quashed. Both Count One and Two of the Indictment allege that Co-Defendant, Jamie MeBride, “on or about and between the dates of December 1, 2015 and June 22, 2016 did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously, without authority of law, conspire with Ivon Jobnson and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to commit the crime of Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree in violation of §97-9-105 of the Mississippi Code, 1972, as amended, (Exhibit F) by conspiring to hinder the prosecution, com ‘ion and punishment of Christopher Butler in Hinds County Cause Numbers in violation of §§97-I-1 and 97-9-105 of the Mississippi Code of 1972, as amended.” The crime ofhindering prosecution requires the State to prove that the person charged with committing the crime “renders criminal assistance to the other person.” Nowhere in the Indictment in the within Cause is it alleged that Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, ever rendered criminal assistance to Christopher Butler or any other person. The phrase “renders criminal assistance”, as it relates to the crime of hindering prosecution, is specifically defined under §97-9-103 Miss Code Ann., (Exhibit G). ‘Under §97- 9-103, in order to commit the crime of hindering prosecution, a person must: harbor or conceal another person; warn another person of impending discovery or apprehension; provide or aids in providing another person with money, transportation, weapon, disguise or other means to avoid discovery or apprehension; prevents or obstructs, by means of force, deception or intimidation, anyone from performing an act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person; or, suppresses, by an act of concealment, alteration or destruction, any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension or conviction of another person. Id, “Rendering criminal assistance” is an essential element of the crime of hindering prosecution. Section §97-9-103 Miss Code Ann. proscribes that “(a) person commits the crime of hindering prosecution in the first degree if, with the intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for conduct constituting a felon, he renders criminal assistance to the other person.” Id, Emphasis added. In order for an indictment for the crime of hindering prosecution to be legally sufficient it must necessarily charge that the accused did render eriminal assistance to another person as required by § 97-9-105 Miss Code Ann, and such indictment must identify the type of criminal assistance that was alleged to be rendered as required by §97-9-103 Miss Code Ann. “The purpose of the indictment is to provide the accused reasonable notice of the charges against him so that he may prepare adequate defense. Warren v. State, 187 So. 34. 616, 621 (Miss 2016); Brawner v. State, 947 So. 2d 254, 265(Miss 206). An indictment must contain (1) the essential elements of the crime charged, (2) sufficient facts to fairly inform the defendant of the charge which he must defend, and (3) sufficient facts to enable him to please double jeopardy in the event of a future prosecution for the same offense. Young v. State, 119 So.3d 309, 313 (Miss 2013). Rule 7.06 of the Uniform Rules of Circuity and County Court Practices state, inpertinent part, thet “(t)he indictment upon which the defendant is to be tried shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense.” /d. The ultimate test, when considering the validity for an indictment on appeal, is whether the defendant ‘was prejudiced in the preparation of his defense. Medina v. State, 688 So.2™ 727, 730 (Miss 1996). ‘The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that an indictment that tracks the language of the statute is generally sufficient to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation King v. State, 580 $0.2” 1182, 1185 (Miss 1991). Formal or technical words are not necessary in an indictment, if the offense can be substantially described without them. URCC 7.06. The Mis issippi Supreme Court has held repeatedly that “(s)o long as a fair reading of the indictment, taken as a whole, clearly describes the nature and cause of the charge against the accused, the indictment is legally sufficient.” Berry v. State, 996 So.2d 782, 787 (Miss 2008) (citing Farris v. State, 164 $0.24 411, (Miss 2000)). ‘The Mississippi Supreme Court also has, held repeatedly that “the ultimate test, when considering the validity of an indictment on appeal, is whether the defendant was prejudiced in the preparation of his defense.” Jones v. State, 856 So. 2d 285, 289 (Miss 2013). ‘The Indictment in the within Cause is legally insufficient on its face. Specifically it fails to allege that Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, rendered criminal assistance to another person as required by §97-9-105 Miss Code Ann. and failed to set forth sufficient facts to fairly inform McBride of the charge(s) he must defend. Section §97-9-103 Miss Code Ann. defines what actions constitute “rendering criminal assistance” as utilized in 97-9-105 Miss Code Ann. For the purposes of Sections§ 9-9-105 and §97-9-107, a person “renders criminal assistance” to another if he knowingly: (a) Harbors or conceals the other person; (>) Wars the other person of impending discovery or apprehension, except that this paragraph (b) does not apply to a warning given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with the law; (0) Provides or aids in providing the other person with money, transportation, weapon, disguise or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension;(d) Prevents or obstructs, by means of force, deception or intimidation, anyone from performing an act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of the other person; or (©) Suppresses, by an act of concealment, alteration or destruction, any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension or conviction of the other person”, §97-9-105 Miss. Code Ann, The Indictment, in order to be sufficient must, allege actions that are prohibited by §97-9-103 Miss Code Ann. when alleging the crime of hindering prosecution. In the within Cause, the indictment fails to allege any actions on McBride's part that specifically violate the conduct proscribed by §97-9-103 Miss Code Ann. In fact, the indictment doesn’t allege any actions at all other than a vague conclusion that the law has been violated. Consequently, MeBride is prejudiced in that he is unable to prepare a defense to the charge of hindering prosecution in as much as the Indictment herein fails to articulate any conduct that would amount to “rendering criminal assistance” a necessary element of the crime of hindering prosecution, Whether an indictment is legally sufficient is a matter of law. ‘The Indictment in the within Cause, charging Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, with two counts of hindering prosecution is legally insufficient and as such must be quashed and dismissed. ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN COUNT TWO OF THE INDICTMENT RELATING TO HINDS COUNTY CAUSE NUMBER 16-0-050 MUST BE DISMISSED Count Two of the Indictment in the within Cause charges that the Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, did conspire with Ivon Johnson and others to commit the crime of Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree in violation of §97-9-105 of the Mississippi Code, 1972, as amended, by conspiring to hinder the prosecution, conviction and punishment of Christopher Butler in Hinds County Numbers 16-0-050 and 16-0-275, In Hinds County Cause Number 16-0- 050 V.S, has been charged with a felony crime. In as much as Christopher Butler has not been charged with any crime in Hinds County Cause Number 16-0-050, it would be legally impossible for MeBride to hinder his prosecution in that Cause, Consequently, all allegations in Count Two of the Indictment relating to Hinds County Cause Number 16-0-050 must be dismissed.CO-DEFENDANT, JAMIE K. MCBRIDE, ACTING IN HIS OFFCICAL CAPACITY AS AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY CANNOT COMMIT THE CRIME OF HINDERING PROSECUTION AS A MATTER OF LAW Co-Defendant, Robert Shuler Smith, is the duly elected District Attorney for Hinds County Mississippi. Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, and Ivon Johnson, at all times alleged herein, were serving the Hinds County District Attorney as Assistant District Attorneys, pursuant to §25-31-5 Miss. Code Ann.. The Office of District Attorney, was ereated by Section 174 of the Mi ssippi Constitution, which provided that his duties should be prescribed by the legislature. Section 25-31-11 Miss Code Ann. (Exhibit H) provides “[iJt shall be the duty of the district attorney to represent the state in all matters coming before the grand juries of the counties within his district and to appear in the circuit courts and prosceute for the state in his district all criminal prosecutions . .. in which the state or any county within his district may be interested.” Jd. The District Attomey is authorized, under §25-31-5 Miss. Code Ann., to employ Legal Assistants, Assistant District Attomeys, to assist him in the performance of his constitutional duties. The within Indictment apparently is alleging that strategies and actions taken or contemplated by the Hinds County District Attorney, with his Assistant District Attorneys, in a Hinds County case that he was prosecuting, have amounted to the crime of hindering prosecution in violation of §97-9-105 Miss. Code Ann.§97-9-105 Miss. Code Ann. The Indictment contemplates that District Attomey Robert Shuler Smith could conspire with his Assistant District Attomeys, in the narcoties cases District Attomey Smith was prosecuting against Christopher Butler, to hinder Butler’s prosecution, specifically in Hinds County Cause Numbers 12-0-452 and 12-0-831. How and in what manner District Attorney Smith chooses to prosecute criminal cases indicted by his office is left to his sole discretion. Strategies and actions developed by District Attorney Smith, through consultation with his Assistant District Attorneys, on how to resolve criminal cases in his office cannot amount to the crime of hindering prosecution for those Assistants. ‘The Mississippi Attorney General has no legal interest in how District Attorney Smith prosecutes his cases. To allow the Mississippi Attorney General to indict Hinds County District Attorney Smith, and his Assistant District Attorney McBride, solely because the Mississippi Attorney General would handle the prosecution of the aforementioned cases differently would be improper. “The powers of the district attorneys can neither beincreased nor diminished by the Atlomey General. Williams v. State, 184 So, 34 908, 913 (Miss. 2014), The Mississippi Attorney General is not Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith’s boss and he has no authority over him. /d. Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, cannot commit the crime of hindering prosecution through the lawful exercise of his duties, under §25- 31-5 Miss. Code Ann., by assisting Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith to resolve Hinds County Cases 12-0-452 and 12-0-831, in which cases the Office of the Hinds County District Attomey is prosecuting. Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, acting in his official capacity as an Assistant District Attomey cannot as a matter of law commit the crimes of hindering prosecution as alleged in the within Cause. The Indictment in the within Cause, charging Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, with two counts of hindering prosecution is illegal and as such must be quashed and dismissed. THE MISSSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONVENE A GRAND JURY TO INVESTIGATE THE CRIME OF HINDERING PROSECTUIION IN HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, was indicted in the within Cause by a special grand jury called solely at the instance of the Mississippi Attomey General. All of the witnesses to the grand jury were subpoenaed at the instance of the Mississippi Attorney General and the Hinds County District Attorney took no part in calling such special grand jury nor presented any evidence before said grand jury. As previously discussed, the Mississippi Attomey General was not directed by the Governor, in writing, to intervene in Hinds County, Mississippi, to prosecute the elected Hinds County District Attorney and one of his Assistant District Attorneys for the crime of hindering prosecution nor did the Hinds County District Attomey request the Mississippi Attorney General to assist him with the prosecution of the same. No statutory authority exists which grants the Mississippi Attorney General the power to specially call a grand jury session. The State Grand Jury Act, §13-7-1 et seq. Miss Code Ann, specifically sets forth that the Attorney General may enter the grand jury while it is in session and assist the district attorney in the discharge of his duties. The statutes do not provide that the Mississippi Attomey General may have a grand jury empaneled. If the legislature had intended for the Mississippi Attorney General to be empowered to call a special grand jury, it would haveso stated. To interpret these statutes otherwise would be contradictory to their legislative intent and impermissibly broaden the powers of the Mississippi Attorney General. Additionally, the Mississippi Attorney General did not have the authority, in the within Cause, to command the circuit court to empanel a grand jury in this case, Pursuant to the State Grand Jury Act, the Mississippi Attorney General powers involving grand juries are limited and only extend to drug and narcotics cases. §13-7-7(1) Miss Code Ann.. Section 13-7-7(2) Miss Code Ann., (Exhibit N) provides as follows: “Whenever the Attomey General considers it necessary, and normal investigative or prosecutorial procedures are not adequate, the Attorney General may petition in writing to the senior court judge of any circuit court district in this case for an order impaneling a state grand jury.” Jd. However, §13-7-7 Miss. Code Ann., (Exhibit 1) only empowers the Mississippi Attorney General to petition, in writing to a senior court judge, a state grand jury for the purposes specifically authorized in §13-7-1(1) Miss Code Ann., drug and narcotic matters. In the within matter the Mississippi Attorney General called a grand jury to investigate and indict the sitting Hinds County District Attorney and one of his Assistant District attorneys, Co- Defendant, Jamie K. McBride for the crime of hindering prosecution, a crime under which the Mississippi Attomey General is not authorized to petition a grand jury for. Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Chuck McRae in his dissent in Bell v, State, 678 So. 2d 994 (Miss. 1996), (Exhibit J), apply addresses the issue at hand. Our system of government calls for checks and balances on each of its various ‘branches and agencies. The Attomey General's Office is no different. The Attorney General position is entrusted with protection of the statewide public interests of Mississippi, as opposed to the local interests of each community. The local district attomeys are responsible for protecting the local interests of their individual communities. This is the reason the Attorney General is not permitted to become intimately involved in local interests such as the one presented by the case at hand. Just as the Attorney General is a constitutionally created position, so is the position of the local district attomeys. Mississippi Constitution of 1890, art. VI, §§ 173-74, This Court may not under our Constitution permit the Attorney General to usurp the powers of another constitutionally created office. Since our Constitution of 1890, the Attomey General historically has not been given the statutory or common law power to empanel a grand jury. Such is the reason this Court should find the indictment in this case was entirely improper. See Kennington-Saenger Theatres v. State, 196 Miss. 841, 18 So. 2d 483, 487 (1944). Id.‘The Mississippi Supreme Court in Williams v. State, 184 So. 3d 908 (Miss 2014), (Exhibit K) found that neither Mississippi's Constitution nor its common law permits the involuntarily disqualification of a duly elected district attorney from the lawful performance his duty and the substitution of the attomey general in the district attorney's place and stead in a case in which no legal grounds for the district attorney's disqualification exists. Id., 914-915. The Williams Court distinguished itself from the Court in Bell v, State, supra, in that in Bell unlike Williams, no evidence was adduced that the local district attorney opposed the involvement of the attorney general. Clearly, in the within Cause Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith opposes the Mississippi Attorney General’s action regarding the grand jury herein, which lead to his indictment in this Cause. ¢ office of district attomey, unlike that of Attorney General, is of modem origin, its duties are prescribed by statute; the civil and criminal business of the state, which once pertained to the office of Attomey General, has been by the Legislature divided between the two offices for convenience, The office of district attorney has been carved out of the office of Attorney General, and made an independent office. The Attormey General may advise the district attomeys, as he does other offices, in his capacity as chief law officer of the state, Nevertheless the two offices are separate and distinct. The powers of the district attorneys can neither be increased nor diminished by the Attomey General. Id. ‘According to the common law of this State, the attorney general may advise the district attorney, but he neither can increase nor diminish the statutory power of the district attorney. Intervention of the attomey general into the independent discretion of a local district attorney regarding whether or not to prosecute a criminal case constitutes an impermissible diminution of the statutory power of the district attomey. See Miss. Code Ann, § 25-31-11(1) (Rev. 2010) ("It shall be the duty of the district attorney to represent the state in all matters coming before the grand juries of the counties within his district and to appear in the circuit courts and prosecute for the state in his district all criminal prosecutions and all civil eases in which the state or any county within his district may be interested . ...") (Emphasis added.) Williams, 184 So. 34 at 913, Without question, the Mississippi Attomey General does not have the power to convene a grand jury to investigate and indict the district attorney and one of his Assistant District Attomeys for the crime of hindering prosecution. The indictment in the within Cause is fatally deficient and must be quashed in as much as it was retumed by a grand jury that ‘was improperly empaneled by the Mississippi Attorney General who does not have the authority to do the same.THE MISSSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE THE CRIME OF HINDERING PROSECTUION IN HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI ‘The Mississippi Attorney General’s Office does not have the authority to prosecute a charge of hindering prosecution against the duly elected District Attomey for Hinds County Mississippi or any of his Assistant District Attorneys in Hinds County, Mississippi. “Both the attomey general and the district attorney are constitutional officers of the State of Mississippi. But the Mississippi Attomey General is not the local district attorneys boss. The Mississippi Attorney General is without authority over him or her.” Williams v. State, 184 So.3d. 908, 913 (Miss 2014). Section 7-5-1 Miss Code Ann. Codifies the common law language that the attorney general is the chief legal officer and advisor of the State, both civil and criminal, and is charged with managing all litigation on behalf of the State, except as otherwise specifically provided by law and that the attorney general shall have the powers of the Attorney General at common law. However, §7-5-1 Miss, Code Ann. “Does not support the usurpation by the attorney general of the independent discretion over criminal prosecution which statutorily has been vested in local district attorneys. See Miss Code Ann. § 25-31-11 (1) (Rev. 2010) (Exhibit L) (“It shall be the duty of the district attorney to represent the state in all matters coming before the grand juries of the counties within his district and to appear in the circuit courts and prosecute for the state in his district all criminal prosecutions and all civil cases in which the state or any county within his district may be interested...” Williams, 108 So. 3d at 914. No statutory authority exists allowing the Mississippi Attomey General's Office to charge the crime of hindering prosecution in violation of §97-9-105 Miss Code Ann., in Hinds County, Mississippi. The Mississippi Atorney General’s authority to prosecute crimes in Hinds County, Mississippi, is limited to those enumerated in, §7-5-59 Miss Code Ann. (Exhibit M) which authorized the Mississippi Attorney General to investigate and prosecute specifically enumerated crimes for public corruption and white collar crimes. That section, however, does not authorize the Mississippi Attorney General to investigate or prosecute the crime of hindering prosecution as proscribed by §97-9-105 Miss Code Ann. Since the statutory authority toprosecute the crime of hindering prosecution is not provided to that office, the Mississippi Attorney General may not prosecute the same, in Hinds County, Mississippi. The Mississippi Attorney General can only intervene in the prosecution of criminal ‘matters in Hinds County, Mississippi, but in extremely limited circumstances. Only one statute authorizes intervention by the Mississippi Attorney General. Mississippi “Code Section § 7-5- 53- provides: “ The Attomey General shall, when required by public service or when directed by the Governor in writing, repair or in person, or by any regular or specially designated assistant, to any county or district in the state and assist the distriet attorney there in the discharge of his duties and in prosecution against as state officer, and shall have the same right as the district attomey to enter the grand jury room while the grand jury is in session and to perform such services with reference to the work of the grand jury as the district attorney is authorized by law to perform.” Miss Code Ann. § 7-5-53 (Rev 2014) (emphasis added). “The operative word in Section 7-5-53 is but one: assist. According to the statute’s plain Tanguage, the attorney general may assist a local district attorney in the discharge of his or her duties.” Williams, 184 So.3d at 914, Under Miss Code Ann, §7-5-53, (Exhibit N), only two scenarios permit the involvement of the attorney general: (1) when required by public service, or (2) when directed by the governor in writing. If one of those applies, the attomey general may be allowed to assist the local district attorney in the discharge of his or her duties. Williams, 184 So, 3d. at 915. In the within Cause, the Mississippi Attorney General was not directed by the Governor, in writing, to intervene in Hinds County, Mississippi, to prosecuted the elected Hinds County District Attorney and one of his Assistant District Attomeys for the crime of hindering prosecution, Neither did the Hinds County District Atiomey request the Mississippi Attorney General to assist him with the prosecution of the same. Therefore, as a matter of law, the Mississippi Attomey General does not have the authority to bring the within prosecution of Co- Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, for the crime of hindering prosecution of Hinds County, Mississippi. The within Cause must be dismissed. WHEREFORE, premises consider, Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride respectfully requests this Court to quash the indictment in the within Cause for the following reasons:‘The Indictment in this Cause is legally insufficient; The allegation contained in Count II of the Indictment relating to Hinds County Case ‘Number 16-0-050 must be dismissed since Christopher Butler is not being prosecuted in that Cause; Co-Defendant, Jamie K. McBride, an Assistant District Attorney, acting in his official capacity cannot commit the crime of hindering prosecution; ‘The Mississippi Attomey General did not have the authority to convene the grand jury that returned the Indictment in this Cause; and, ‘The Mississippi Attorney General does not have the authority to prosecute the crime of hindering prosecution, in Hinds County, Mississippi. Respectfully submitted, JAMIE K. MCBRIDE, Defendant BY: jale Danks, Jr. (MSB#5789) Counsel for the Defendant OF COUNSEL Dale Danks, Jr. (MSB# 5789 DANKS, MILLER & Cory 213 South Lamar Street Jackson, Mississippi (39201) Post Office Box 1759 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1759 Telephone: 601.957.3101 Facsimile: 601.957.3160CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Dale Danks, attomey for Jamie K. McBride, do hereby certify that I have this day emailed and mailed, by United States mail, postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing, Co-Defendant, Jamie McBride's, Motion to Quash the Indictment to the following: Robert G. Anderson, Esq. Office of the Attomey General Post Office Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205-0220 rande@ago.state.ms.us So certified this the 21* day of September, 2016. ale Danks, JrNOTICE OF HEARING TO: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD Please be advised that the CoDefendant, Jamie K. McBride's, Motion To Quash Indictment, in the above-styled and numbered cause, by and through his undersigned attorney, will bring on for hearing as soon as counsel may be heard before Honorable Larry E. Roberts, Special Circuit Judge, at the Circuit Court of The First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi. SO NOTICED this the 21" day of September, 2016. le Danks, Jr.» 59 Appendix Indictment Section 25-31-5 Miss. Code Ann. Indictment Hinds County Case Number 12-0-242 Indictment Hinds County Case Number 12-0-831 Indictment Hinds County Case Number 16-0-275 Section 97-9-105 Miss. Code Ann. Section 97-9-103 Miss. Code Ann. Section 25-31-11 Miss. Code Ann. Section 13-7-7 Miss. Code Ann. Bell v. State, 678 So. 2d 994 (Miss. 1996) Williams v, State, 184 So. 3d 908 (Miss 2014) Section 25-31-11 Miss. Code Ann. Section 7-5-59 Miss. Code Ann. Section 7-5-53 Miss. Code Ann.EXHIBIT ACase: 25C11:16-cr-00837-LER Document #:1 Filed: 09/07/2016 Page 1 of 3 FiLlep SEP ~7 2016 CONSPIRACY MCA § 97-1-1 - Counts I and IT MULTI-COUNT MCA § 99-7-2. (Common Plan or Scheme) TAK IDUNS ek DISTRICT ATTORNEY NOT © TO ADVISE CRIMINALS MCA § 97-11-3 - Count IIT INDICTMENT, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CIRCUIT COURT HINDS COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT September Term, A.D., 2016 Cause Number:_- 27S 37_ ‘The Grand Jurots for the State of Mississippi, taken from the body of good and lawful persons of Hinds County, First Judicial District, in the State of Mississippi, elected, impaneled, swom and charged to inquire in and for said County and State aforesaid, in the name and by the authority of the State of Mississippi, upon their oaths present: COUNT. that, ROBERT SHULER SMITH and JAMIE K. McBRIDE, in the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi on or about and between the dates of December 1, 2015, and June 22, 2016, did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously, without authority of law, conspire with Ivon Johnson and with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to commit the crime of Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree in violation of § 97-9-105 of the Mississippi Code, 1972, as amended, by conspiring to hinder the prosecution, conviction and punishment of Christopher Butler in Hinds County Cause Numbers 12-452 and 12-831 in violation of §§ 97-1-1 and 97-9-105 of the Mississippi Code, 1972, as amended, andCase: 25C11:16-cr-00837-LER Document #:1 Filed: 09/07/2016 Page 2 of 3 COUNT II that, as part of a common scheme and plan, in the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi on or about and between the dates of December 1, 2015, and June 22, 2016, ROBERT SHULER SMITH and JAMIE K. McBRIDE did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously, without authority of law, conspire with Ivon Johnson and with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to commit the crime of Hindering Prosecution in the First Degtee in violation of § 97-9-105 of the Mississippi Code, 1972, as amended, by conspiring to hinder the prosecution, conviction and punishment of Christopher Butler in Hinds County Cause Numbers 16-50 and 16-275 in violation of §§ 97-1-1 and 97-9-105 of the Mississippi Code, 1972, as amended, and COUNT IT as part of a common scheme and plan, in Hinds County, Mississippi on or about and between January 14,2016, and June 22, 2016, ROBERT SHULER SMITH while acting in his capacity as District Attomey for the Seventh Circuit Court District, Hinds County, Mississippi, did wilfully and unlawfully consult, advise and counsel defendant Christopher Butler, who was then and there a defendant charged with a crime in the Seventh Circuit Court District, Hinds County, Mississippi, by meeting with Christopher Butler at the Hinds County Jail outside the presence of Butler's attomey, by later advising Butler's attomey in various ways to attack the State’s pending case against Butler, and by other means seeking the release of Butler from jail in violation of § 97-11-3 of the Mississippi Code, as amended, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi.Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00837-LER Document #:1 Filed: 09/07/2016 Page 3 of 3 hat t, dadlealer Special Assistant Attomey General aiecourt Deputy Cireuit Court Clerk ENDORSED: A TRUE BILL COMES NOW Shel Sacha , Foreman of the Grand Jury of Hinds County, Mississippi, and makes oath that this indictment presented to this Court was concurred in by twelve (12) or more members of the Grand Jury and at least fifteen (15) members thereof were present during all deliberations. MAN OF THE GRAND JURY SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this, the _77 day of. ‘Sept 2016. ZACK WALLACE, CIRCUIT CLERKEXHIBIT B§ 25-31-5. Legal assistants to district attorney; expenditure of certain federal funds for additional legal assistants and criminal investigators authorized, Mississippi Statutes Title 25. PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; PUBLIC RECORDS Chapter 31. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS Current through 2016 Second Extraordinary Session § 25-31-5. Legal assistants to district attorney; expen re of certain federal funds for additional legal assistants and criminal investigators authorized (1) The following number of full-time legal assistants are authorized in the following circuit court districts: (a) First Circuit Court District. _nine (9) legal assistants. (b) Second Circuit Court District... ten (10) legal assistants. (©) Third Circuit Court District... sonnefive (5) legal assistants. (d) Fourth Circuit Court District... Six (6) legal assistants. (©) Fifth Circuit Court District... five (5) legal assistants. (f) Sixth Circuit Court District. evento (2) egal assistants. (9) Seventh Circuit Court District... eleven (11) legal assistants. (h) Eighth Circuit Court District. three (3) legal assistants. (i) Ninth Circuit Court District. ree (3) legal assistants. () Tenth Circuit Court District... four (4) legal assistants. (k) Eleventh Circuit Court District. ....nenennnsseufive (5) legal assistants. () Twelfth Circuit Court District, five (5) legal assistants.(2) (m) Thirteenth Circuit Court District, . four (4) legal assistants. (n) Fourteenth Circuit Court District sos sunseefive (5) legal assistants. (0) Fifteenth Circuit Court District... six (6) legal assistants. (p) Sixteenth Circuit Court Distrct.. five (5) legal assistants. (a) Seventeenth Circuit Court District... seven (7) legal assistants. (r) Eighteenth Circuit Court District....c.nnnnnsnntWO (2) legal assistants. (s) Nineteenth Circuit Court District. Six (6) legal assistants. (8) Twentieth Circuit Court District. six (6) legal assistants. (u) Twenty-first Circuit Court District.......snennnethtee (3) legal assistants (v) Twenty-second Circuit Court District. three (3) legal assistants. In addition to any legal assistants authorized pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the following number of full-time legal assistants are authorized (|) in the following circuit court districts if funds are appropriated by the Legislature to adequately fund the salaries, expenses and fringe benefits of such legal assistants, or (i) in any of the following circuit court districts in which the board of supervisors of one or more of the counties in a circuit court district adopts a resolution to pay all of the salaries, supplemental pay, expenses and fringe benefits of legal assistants authorized in such district pursuant to this subsection: (a) First Circuit Court District to (2) legal assistants. (b) Second Ciroult Court District....nsnsseenunnnntWo (2) legal assistants. (©) Third Circuit Court District... two (2) legal assistants.(d) (e) i) (9) ” (m) (n) (0) (p) Fourth Circuit Court District. two (2) legal assistants. Fifth Circuit Court District......cssineananntW0 (2) legal assistants. Sixth Circuit Court District. resect WO (2) legal assistants. Seventh Circuit Court District......sssennnetW0 (2) legal assistants. Eighth Circuit Court District... seseen WO (2) legal assistants. Ninth Cirouit Court District, svoatWO (2) legal assistants. Tenth Circuit Court District. wo (2) legal assistants. Eleventh Ci legal assistants. Court District... two (2) ‘Twelfth Circuit Court District... legal assistants. two (2) Thirteenth Circuit Court District .....s.onennentWO (2) legal assistants. Fourteenth Circuit Court Distri two (2) legal assistants. Fifteenth Circuit Court District tO (2) legal assistants. Sixteenth Circuit Court District..n..nnennnst0 (2) legal assistants. Seventeenth Circuit Court District... two (2) legal assistants. Eighteenth Circuit Court District... two (2) legal assistants. Nineteenth Circuit Court District. two (2) legal assistants.() Twentieth Circuit Court Distri legal assistants. two (2) (u) Twenty-first Circuit Court suuto (2) legal assistants. (Vv) Twenty-second Circuit Court District.......0...c.0ntWO (2) legal assistants. (3) The board of supervisors of any county may pay all or a part of the salary, supplemental pay, expenses and fringe benefits of any district attorney or legal assistant authorized in the circuit court district to which such county belongs pursuant to this section (4) The district attorney of any circuit court district may employ additional legal assistants or criminal investigators, or both, without regard to any limitation on the number of legal assistants authorized in this section or criminal investigators authorized by other provisions of law to the extent that the district attorney's office receives funds from any source. Any source shall include, but is not limited to, office generated funds, funds from a county, a combination of counties, a municipality, a combination of municipalities, federal funds, private grants or foundations, or by means of an Interlocal Cooperative Agreement authorized by Section 17-13-1 which may be expended for those positions in an amount sufficient to pay all of the salary, supplemental pay, expenses and fringe benefits of the positions. Such funds may either be paid out of district attomey accounts, transferred by the district attorney to the Department of Finance and Administration or to one or more of the separate counties comprising the circuit court district, and said funds shall be disbursed to such employees in the same manner as state-funded criminal investigators and full-time legal assistants. The district attorney shall report to the board of supervisors of each county comprising the circuit court district the amount and source of the supplemental salary, expenses and fringe benefits, and the board in each county shall spread the same on its minutes. The district attorney shall also report such information to the Department of Finance and Administration which shall make such information available to the Legislative Budget Office. (8) The district attorney shall be authorized to assign the duties of a legal assistant regardless of the source of funding for such legal assistants. Cite as Miss. Code § 25-31-5 Source: Codes, 1942, § 3920.5; Laws, 1955, Ex. ch. 38, §§ 1-4; Laws, 1960, ch. 271, §§ 1-5; Laws, 1962, 2d Ex. Sess. ch. 18; Laws, 1966, ch. 368, § 1; Laws, 1972, ch. 497, § 1; Laws, 1973, ch. 494, § 4; Laws, 1974, ch. 544, § 1; Laws, 1975, ch, 506; Laws, 1976, ch. 468; Laws, 1977, ch. 453, §§ 2, 5; Laws, 1978, ch. 509, § 5; Laws, 1982, ch. 492; Laws, 1984, 1st Ex Sess, ch. 7; Laws, 1985, ch. 502, § 58; Laws, 1987, ch. 458; Laws, 1988, ch. 552; Laws, 1993, ch. 597, § 4; Laws, 1994, ch 564, § 100; Laws, 1996, ch. 512, § 1; Laws, 1997, ch. 677, § 5; Laws, 1999, ch. 501, § 1; Laws, 2005, ch. 606, § 9, eff. 7/15/2005; Laws, 2006, ch. 561, § 1; Laws, 2007, ch. 558, § 1;Laws, 2009, ch. 455, § 1; Laws, 2010, ch. 529, §1, eff. 4/14/2010. History. Amended by Laws, 2014EX1, ch. 1, HB 1, §1, eff. 7/1/2016. ‘Amended by Laws, 2014EX1, ch, 1, HB 1, §1, eff. 11/1/2014.EXHIBIT CINDICTMENT CIRCUIT COURT NO. LIAS vK) Possession ~ 41-29-147 2" Subsequent Offender ~ 41-29-147 Habitual - 99-19-81 The State of Mississippi Circuit Court First District, Hinds County January Term, A.D., 2012 First Judicial District of Hinds County The Grand Jurors for the State of Mississippi, taken from the body of good and lawful persons of the State of Mississippi, elected, impaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire in ‘and for said District, County and State aforesaid, in the name and by the authority of the State of Mississippi, upon their oaths present: Tha! in said District, County, and State ‘on or about the 19" day of April, 2011 Did willfully, untawfully, feloniously and knowingly possess Marijuana, in an amount of more than 1 kilogram but less than 5 kilograms, in violation of Section 41-29-139 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 Annotated, as amended and Kwanza Hilliard, the said having been previously convicted of the offense of Possession of Marijuana, on June 29, 2000, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi in cause number 99-1-261, pursuant tothe provisions of Section 41- 29-147, Mississippi Code, 1972, as amended, He, the said Christopher Butler, having been twice previously convicted of felonies, to-wit the crime of Possession of Marijuana, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, on January 11, 2000, in Cause number 98-4-128, in said Court, the crime of Sale of Cocaine, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, on January 12, 2000, in Cause number 99-0-986, in said Court, the crime of Motor Vehicle Theft, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, on February 24, 2000, iri Cause number 9-0-0411, in said Court, the crime of Possession of Marijuana, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, on January 11, 2000, in Cause number 98-2-186, in said Court, and the crime of Possession of Cocaine, in the Circuit Court of First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, on September 20, 1996, in Cause number 96-1-224, in said Court, each of said felony convictions being upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times, and upon each of said convictions, the aforesaid named defendant was sentenced to separate terms of one year or more in a penal institution of the above-named state, this indictment being returned pursuant to the provisions of Section 99-19-81, Mississippi Code, 1972, as amended, andHe, the said Christopher Butler, having been previously convicted of the offense of Possession of Marijuana, on January 11, 2000, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi in cause number 98-4-128, pursuant to the provisions of Section 41-29-147, Mississippi Code, 1972, as amended, Contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi fand Jury Fofeman Assistant District AttorneyEXHIBIT DINDICTMENT CIRCUIT COURT NO.. [2 ASL Ac Possession — 41-29-139 2° Subsequent Offender ~ 41-29-147 Habitual - 99-19-84 The State of Mississippi Circuit Court First District, Hinds County Jurie Term, A.D., 2012 First Judicial District of Hinds County _The Grand Jurors for the State of Mississippi, taken from the body of good and lawful persons of the State of Mississippi, elected, impaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire in and for said District, County and State aforesaid, in the name and by the authority of the State of Mississippi, upon their oaths present: That Christopher Butler in said District, County, and State on or about the 13” day of April, 2012 Did willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly possess Marijuana, in an amount of more than 1 kilogram but less than 5 kilograms, in violation of Section 41-29-139 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 Annotated, as amended and He, the said Christopher Butler, having been previously convicted of the offense of Sale of Cocaine, on January 12, 2000, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi in cause number 99-0-986, pursuant to the provisions of Section 41- 29-147, Mississippi Code, 1972, as amended, He, the said Christopher Butler, having been twice previously convicted of felonies, to-wit the crime of Sale of Cocaine, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, on January 12, 2000, in Cause number 99-0-986, in said Court, the crime of Possession of Marijuana, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, on January 11, 2000, in Cause number 98-2-156, in said Court, the crime of Possession of Marijuana, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, on January 11, 2000, in Cause number 98-4-128, in said Court and the crime of Possession of Cocaine, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, on September 20, 1996, in Cause number 96-1-224, in said Court, each of said felony convictions being upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times, and upon each of said convictions, the aforesaid named defendant was sentenced to separate terms of one year or more in a penal institution of the above-named state, this indictment being returned pursuant to the provisions of Section 99-19-81, Mississippi Code, 1972, as amended, and12-43) Christopher Butler Page -2- Contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi Jot rand Jury Foreman ppt Assistant District AttorneyEXHIBIT EINDICTMENT Page | of 3 ‘THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, CIRCUIT COURT APRIL, A. D., 2016 COUNTY OF HINDS 1* JUDICIAL DISTRICT No._Ile-a1sjau/ FALSE PRETENSE FILE Dp Section 97-19-39, Miss. Code of 1972, as amended FRAUD BY MAIL OR OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION APR 07 2016 Section 97-19-83, Miss, Code of 1972, as amended HABITUAL OFFENDER ZACK WALLACE, GIRCUTT CLERK. Section 99-19-81, Miss, Code of 1972, as amended ee a ‘THE GRAND JURORS of the State of Mississippi, taken from the body of the good and lawful citizens of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, duly elected, empaneled, swom and charged to inquire in and for the said State, County and District, at the Term of Court aforesaid, in the name and by the authority of the State of Mississippi, upon their oaths present: ‘That: CHRISTOPHER BUTLER Count One in Hinds County, Mississippi, on or about August 20, 2015 Did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with intent to defraud Uown, did designedly by color of false token or writing, did obtain a sum in excess of $500.00 to the detriment of Uown, in violation of Miss. Code ‘Ann, § 97-19-39 as amended, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi. Count Two in Hinds County, Mississippi, on or about August 20, 2015 Did unlawfully and feloniously devised or intended to devise a scheme and artifice to deftaud Uown, by ‘means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises to Uown; in furtherance of and for the purpose of executing the aforesaid scheme and artifice to defraud Uown, Christopher Butler did willfully and unlawfully cause money to be transmitied across county jurisdictional in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-19-83, as amended, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi he, the said Christopher Butler, having been twice previously convicted of felonies, to-wit: the crime of Sale of Cocaine in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, on Jamuary 12, 2000, in Cause Number 99-0-986 in said Court, the crime of Possession of Marijuana in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, on January 11, 2000, in Cause Number 98-2-156 in said Court, the crime of Possession of Marijuana in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, on January 11, 2000, in Cause Number 98-4-128 in said Court, the crime of Possession of Cocaine in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, on September 20, 1996, in Cause Number 96-1-224 in saidINDICT Page 2 of 3 THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, CIRCUIT COURT APRIL, A. D., 2016 COUNTY OF HINDS I* JUDICIAL DISTRICT No. Court, each of said felony convictions being upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate indictments at different times, and upon each of said convictions, the said Christopher Butler, was sentenced to separate terms of one year or more in a penal institution of the above named state, this indictment being returned pursuant to the provisions of Section 99-19-81, Mississippi Code, 1972, as amended, and contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi. ENDORSED: A TRUE BILL OF THE GRAND JURYINDICTMENT Page 3 of 3, THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, CIRCUIT COURT APRIL, A. D., 2016 COUNTY OF HINDS 1" JUDICIAL DISTRICT No. AFFIDAVIT Comes now lobed’ ‘€Sreman of the aforesaid Grand Jury, and makes oath that this indictment presented to this Coukt was concurred in by twelve (12) ot more members of the Grand Jury and that at least fifteen (15) members of the Grand Jury were present during aff delibgrations OF THE GRAND JUR’ ‘Swom to and subscribed before me this the day of, 2016, CIRCUIT CLERK Dc aEXHIBIT F§ 97-9-105. Hindering prosecution in the first degree. Mississippi Statutes Title 97. CRIMES Chapter 9. OFFENSES AFFECTING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE Article 3. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Current through 2016 Second Extraordinary Session § 97-9-105. Hindering prosecution in the first degree (1) Aperson commits the crime of hindering prosecution in the first degree if, with the intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for conduct constituting a felony, he renders criminal assistance to the other person. (2) Hindering prosecution in the first degree is a Class 1 felony. Cite as Miss. Code § 97-9-105 Source: Laws, 2006, ch. 387, § 3, eff. 71/2006,EXHIBIT G§ 97-9-103. Hindering prosecution or apprehension; definition of “criminal assistance.” Mississippi Statutes Title 97. CRIMES Chapter 9. OFFENSES AFFECTING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE Article 3. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Current through 2016 Second Extraordinary Session § 97-9-103. Hindering prosecution or apprehension; defi For the purposes of Sections 97-9-105 and 97-9-107, a person "renders criminal assistance" to another if he knowingly: nal assistance.” (a) Harbors or conceals the other person; (b) Wars the other person of impending discovery or apprehension, except that this, paragraph (b) does not apply to a warning given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with the law; (©) Provides or aids in providing the other person with money, transportation, weapon, disguise or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension; (4) Prevents or obstructs, by means of force, deception or intimidation, anyone from performing an act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of the other person; or (e) Suppresses, by an act of concealment, alteration or destruction, any physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension or conviction of the other person. Cite as Miss. Code § 97-9-103 Source: Laws, 2006, ch. 387, § 2, eff. 7/1/2008.EXHIBIT H§ 25-31-11. Powers and duties. Mississippi Statutes Title 25. PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; PUBLIC RECORDS Chapter 31. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. Current through 2016 Second Extraordinary Session § 25-31-11, Powers and duties a) (5) It shall be the duty of the district attorney to represent the state in all matters coming before the grand juries of the counties within his district and to appear in the circuit courts and prosecute for the state in his district all criminal prosecutions and all civil cases in which the state or any county within his district may be interested; but if two (2) or more counties are adversely interested, the district attorney shall not represent either. Any district attorney may also institute and prosecute to final judgment or decree any case in the name of the state against any person or corporation for any violation of the Constitution or the laws of this state, in order to enforce any penalties, fines or forfeitures imposed by law in any court of his district having jurisdiction, with like effect as if the suit was instituted by the Attorney General. The district attorney may transfer any case handled by him to a county prosecuting attorney when charges in such case no longer constitute a felony. The validity of any judgment or sentence shall not be affected by the division of jurisdiction Under this section, and no judgment or sentence may be reversed or modified upon the basis that the case was not processed according to this section. A county prosecuting attorney or municipal prosecuting attomey may be designated by the district attorney to appear on behalf of the district attorney pursuant to an agreement relating to appearances in certain courts or proceedings in the county of the county prosecuting attorney or in the municipality of the municipal prosecuting attorney. Such agreement shall be filed with the circuit court clerk of any county where such agreement shall be operative. Such agreement shall be binding upon the district attorney and county prosecuting attorney or municipal prosecuting attorney until dissolved by either of them in writing upon five (5) days’ notice. Where any statute of this state confers a jurisdiction, responsibility, duty, privilege or power upon a county attorney or county prosecuting attorney, either solely, jointly or alternatively with a district attorney, such county prosecuting attorney shall be responsible for the prosecution, handling, appearance, disposition or other duty conferred by such statute. Any such provision shall not be construed to bestow such responsibilty, jurisdiction or power upon the district attorney where there is no elected county prosecuting attorney, and any such matter shall be handled pursuant to Section 19-3-49, Mississippi Code of 1972. The district attorney or his designated assistant, or the county prosecuting attorney or his designated assistant, shall assist the Attorney General in appeals from his district to the@) (8) Mississippi Supreme Court and in other post judgment proceedings, and shall appear for oral argument before the Supreme Court when directed by the Supreme Court. The several district attorneys shall submit reports of revenues and expenditures and shall submit budget requests as required for State General Fund agencies. For purposes of budget control, the several offices of district attorney shall be considered General Fund agencies and the budget and accounts of the several offices, including salaries, travel expenses, office expenses and any other expenditures or revenues, shall be consolidated for all districts as far as such consolidation is practical. All revenue or funds allocated or expended by a district attorney, whether such funds are appropriated from state funds, or whether such funds are received from county funds, grants or otherwise, shall be reported to the Legislative Budget Office. A district attorney shall be authorized to assign the duties of employees regardless of the source of funding for such employees, Cite as Miss. Code § 25-31-11 ‘Source: Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 22, art 3 (4); 1857, ch. 6, art 70; 1871, § 214; 1880, § 256; 1892, § 1555; 1906, § 1661; Hemingway's 1917, § 1398; 1930, § 4363; 1942, § 3920; Laws, 1978, ch. 509, § 9; Laws, 1979, ch. 490, § 2; Laws, 1984, ch. 488, § 175; Laws, 2009, ch. 455, § 4, eff. 7/1/2008.EXHIBIT I§ 13-7-7. [Repealed effective 7/1/2024] Jurisdiction of state grand jury; petition to impanel state grand jury; impaneling state grand jury; powers and duties of impaneling judge. Mississippi Statutes Title 13. EVIDENCE, PROCESS AND JURIES Chapter 7. STATE GRAND JURY ACT Current through 2016 Second Extraordinary Session § 13-7-7. [Repealed effective 7/1/2024] Jurisdiction of state grand jury; petition to impanel state grand jury; impaneling state grand jury; powers and duties of impaneling judge (1) The jurisdiction of a state grand jury impaneled under this chapter extends throughout the state. The subject matter jurisdiction of a state grand jury in all cases is limited to offenses involving any and all conduct made unlawful by the Mississippi Uniform Controlled Substances Law or any other provision of law involving narcotics, dangerous drugs or controlled substances, or any crime arising out of or in connection with a crime involving narcotics, dangerous drugs or controlled substances, and crimes involving any attempt, aiding, abetting, solicitation or conspiracy to commit any of the aforementioned crimes if the crimes occur within more than one (1) circuit court district or have transpired or are ing or have significance in more than one (1) circuit court district ofthis state (2) Whenever the Attorney General considers it necessary, and normal investigative or prosecutorial procedures are not adequate, the Attorney General may petition in writing to the senior circuit court judge of any circuit court district in this state for an order impaneling a state grand jury. For the purposes of this chapter, such judge shall be referred to as the impaneling judge. The petition must allege the following: (a) The type of offenses to be inquired into; (b) That the state grand jury has jurisdiction to consider such matters; (c) That the offenses to be inquired into have occurred within more than one (1) circuit court district or have transpired or are transpiring or have significance in more than ‘one (1) circuit court district of this state; (d) That the Attorney General has conferred with the Commissioner of Public Safety and the Director of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics and that each of such officials join in the petition; and (e) That the Attomey General has conferred with the appropriate district attorney for each jurisdiction in which the crime or crimes are alleged to have occurred. (3) The impaneting judge, after due consideration of the petition, may order the impanelment of a state grand jury in accordance with the petition for a term of twelve (12) calendar months. Upon petition by the Attorney General, the impaneling judge, by order, may extend the term of that state grand jury for a period of six (6) months, but the term of that state grand jury, including any extension thereof, shall not exceed two (2) years,(5) (6) Cite as Mi The impaneling judge shall preside over the state grand jury until its discharge. ‘The impaneling judge may discharge a state grand jury prior to the end of its original term or any extensions thereof, upon a determination that its business has been completed, or upon the request of the Attomey General. If, at any time within the original term of any state grand jury or any extension thereof, the impaneling judge determines that the state grand jury is not conducting investigative activity within its jurisdiction or proper investigative activity, the impaneling judge may limit the investigations so that the investigation conforms with the jurisdiction of the state grand jury and existing law or he may discharge the state grand jury. An order issued pursuant to this subsection or under subsection (5) of this section shall not become effective less than ten (10) days after the date on which it is issued and actual notice given to the Attorney General and the foreman of the state grand jury, and may be appealed by the Attomey General to the Supreme Court. If an appeal from the order is made, the state grand jury, except as otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court, shall continue to exercise its powers pending disposition of the appeal. - Code § 13-7-7 Source: Laws, 1993, ch. 553, § 4; reenacted without chango, Laws, 1998, ch. 382, § 4, reenacted without change, Laws, 1999, ch. 480, § 4; reenacted without change, Laws, 2002, ch. 471, § 4; reenacted without ‘change, Laws, 2011, ch. 337, §4, off. 7/1/2011 History. Reenacted by Laws, 2014, ch, 526, $B 2484, 4, eff. 71/2014.