Riggs v. The State
| Decision Date | 17 December 1885 |
| Docket Number | 12,740 |
| Citation | 3 N.E. 886,104 Ind. 261 |
| Parties | Riggs v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Fayette Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
B. F Claypool and J. H. Claypool, for appellant.
F. T Hord, Attorney General, L. M. Develin, R. Conner and H. L Frost, for the State.
The property which the appellant is charged to have stolen is thus described: "Five hundred and twenty dollars of the paper currency, money and bank notes, current in the United States, a more particular description of which currency, money and bank notes affiant can not give; said five hundred and twenty dollars being then and there the personal property of this affiant, Samuel Lamberson, and then and there of the value of five hundred and twenty dollars."
The description of the money alleged to have been stolen is sufficient under the provisions of section 1750 of our statute. It is true that the exact words of the statute are not employed, but it is affirmed by a long line of decisions that it is not necessary to use the words of the statute, provided words of equivalent meaning are used. State v. Miller, 98 Ind. 70; Toops v. State, 92 Ind. 13; Howard v. State, 87 Ind. 68; State v. Allisbach, 69 Ind. 50; Shinn v. State, 68 Ind. 423; Struckmyer v. State, 29 Ind. 20; Malone v. State, 14 Ind. 219; Marble v. State, 13 Ind. 362; Pelts v. State, 3 Blackf. 28; State v. Bougher, 3 Blackf. 307.
As the language employed in the affidavit and information is equivalent in meaning to that which the statute declares shall be sufficient, the ruling of the trial court denying the motion to quash must be sustained, unless the statute is unconstitutional. It is affirmed that it is so because in conflict with the provision of the Constitution, that the accused shall have a right "to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof."
We have no doubt that a statute attempting to deny an accused the right to demand the nature of the charge preferred against him would be void. It is not in the power of the Legislature to deprive one accused of crime of the right to demand information of the nature of the crime which he is charged with having committed. Miller v. State, 79 Ind. 198; Landringham v. State, 49 Ind. 186; McLaughlin v. State, 45 Ind. 338; State v. O'Flaherty, 7 Nev. 153.
We agree with Mr. Bishop that "The 'nature and cause' of accusation are not stated where there is no mention of the full act or series of acts for which the punishment is to be inflicted." 1 Bishop Crim. Proc., section 88. This rule requires that the indictment or information shall contain the essential elements of the crime charged, although, as said in State v. O'Flaherty, supra, "The power of the Legislature to mold and fashion the form of an indictment is plenary."
If the statute under examination can be regarded as depriving an accused of the right "to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him," it must fall. The question is, does it deprive an accused of that right? Our judgment is that it does not. It does not dispense with a statement of any of the essential ingredients of a criminal offence, but merely prescribes a rule for the description of bank notes, or coin, current as money, when the property stolen is of that class. It does not profess to dispense with all description of the property stolen, but simply declares what description shall be sufficiently specific. It does not attempt to dispense with a description of the class or kind of property, but merely provides that "it shall be sufficient to describe such money, bills, notes, or currency simply as money, without specifying any particular coin, note, bill, or currency."
The statute is confined solely to the matter of description, and provides the method of describing a particular kind or class of property. The description of the class or kind of property, accompanied by a statement of all the essential ingredients of the crime, is sufficient to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The Constitution does not require that an accused shall have a right to a specific statement of the charge against him, but the requirement is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Riggs v. State
-
Bryan v. Ferguson
... ... the time said Sarah Bryan lost her life the said John Bryan was, and had been for several years previous, and he is now, a non-resident of the state of Indiana; that he had abandoned said children; that he had married another woman, by whom he had one child, now living with its mother's relations, ... ...
-
Bryan v. Lyon
... ... lost her life, the said John Bryan was, and had been for ... several years previous, and he is now a non-resident of the ... State of Indiana; that he had abandoned said children; that ... he had married another woman, by whom he had one child, now ... living with its mother's ... ...