McLain v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 193 |
| Citation | 72 So. 511,15 Ala.App. 24 |
| Parties | McLAIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Armstead Brown, Judge.
Howard McLain was convicted of violating the sanitary live stock regulations, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
The indictment was as follows (omitting formal charging part):
Hill, Hill, Whiting & Stern, of Montgomery, for appellant.
William L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and Harwell G. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was tried and convicted of violation of the live stock sanitary regulations with reference to the transportation of live stock within the limits of a quarantined district. Code, § 761. The indictment contains four counts, to each of which demurrers were interposed and overruled by the court.
It is permissible, when offenses may be committed by different means, to charge the same in the alternative. Code 1907, §§ 7149-7151. The grounds of demurrer addressed to the indictment in this respect are not well taken. It is the general rule that when a statute creates a new offense, unknown to the common law, and describes its constituents, the offense may be charged in the language of the statute. Sellers v. State, 7 Ala.App. 78, 61 So. 485, and authorities there cited. Each of the different counts of the indictment set out all the statutory elements creating the offense, and every necessary fact which was an ingredient; and it was not necessary to state presumptions of law and matters of which judicial notice is taken. It is not required that an indictment set up the proof necessary to a conviction; it is sufficient if it charge the offense in the language of the statute. Davis v. State, 141 Ala. 62, 37 So. 676; Johnson v. State, 152 Ala. 46, 44 So. 670. The demurrers attacking the indictment because of the insufficiency of its averments were properly overruled.
After setting out the evidence and the refused charges, the bill of exceptions contains the following recital:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Caplan
...not allege more than he is required to prove, and that facts of which the court will take judicial notice need not be alleged. McEain v. State, 15 Ala. App. 24. 72 So. 511, 512; People v. Snyder, 279 Ill. 435, 117 N, E. 119, 121; Acton v. State, 80 Md. 547, 31 A. 419, 420; United States v. ......
-
State v. Louis Caplan
...more than he is required to prove, and that facts of which the court will take judicial notice need not be alleged. McLain v. State, 15 Ala.App. 24, 72 So. 511, 512; People v. Snyder, 279 Ill. 435, 117 N.E. 119, Acton v. State, 80 Md. 547, 31 A. 419, 420; United States v. Golden (D. C.), 1 ......
-
Kennedy v. State
...facts, and, as has been often held, 'it is not required that an indictment set up the proof necessary to a conviction.' McLain v. State, 15 Ala.App. 24, 72 So. 511, 512; Johnson v. State, 152 Ala. 46, 44 So. 670, among We hold there was no need to charge the 'accident' happened on a public ......
-
Vaughn v. State
...that an indictment set up the proof necessary to a conviction.'" Hochman, 265 Ala. at 3, 91 So.2d at 502, quoting McLain v. State, 15 Ala.App. 24, 72 So. 511, 512 (1916). "`The government need only allege the "essential facts necessary to apprise a defendant of the crime charged" and not it......