State v. Adalgisa Villa

• Decision Date: 11 January 1918
• Parties: STATE v. ADALGISA VILLA
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

102 A. 935

92 Vt. 121

STATE v. ADALGISA VILLA

Supreme Court of Vermont

January 11, 1918

November Term, 1917.

COMPLAINT, charging that the respondent did "sell intoxicating liquor without authority." Plea not guilty. Trial by jury in the city court of the city of Barre, H William Scott, Judge. Verdict guilty. After verdict and before sentence the respondent moved in arrest of judgment for that the complaint was uncertain, insufficient and indefinite and did not legally inform her of the causes and nature of the accusation against her. Motion overruled. Respondent excepted. The opinion states the case.

The judgment overruling the motion is reversed, the motion is sustained, judgment is arrested, and the respondent is discharged.

Richard A. Hoar for respondent.

Earle R. Davis, State's Attorney, for the State.

Present WATSON, C. J., HASELTON, POWERS, TAYLOR, and MILES, JJ.

OPINION

POWERS

This respondent was tried in the city court of Barre for illegal liquor selling. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and she moved in arrest on the ground that the complaint was too uncertain to support a judgment. The motion was overruled and an exception saved.

The complaint charges that the respondent at a time and place named, did "sell intoxicating liquor without authority," contrary to the statute and against the peace--without further particulars or description.

It is provided in Chap. 1, Art. 10, of the Constitution of our State that "in all prosecutions for criminal offences, a person hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation."

From this form of expression it is not to be inferred that it is necessary for the accused to make any actual demand for this information, for it means no more than corresponding clauses found in the constitutions of some of the states to the effect that the accused is entitled to be informed of the nature of the charge brought against him. Such information must be found in the complaint or other form of accusation to which he is called upon to plead, unaided by extrinsic facts. If this be legally inadequate, it cannot be made sufficient by a specification or bill of particulars even. State v. Van Pelt, 136 N.C. 633, 49 S.E. 177, 68 L.R.A. 700, 1 Ann. Cas. 495; Com. v. B. & O. R. Co., 223 Pa. 23, 72 A. 278, 132 Am. St. Rep. 723; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588. Reasonable certainty in the statement of the crime suffices. All that is required is that the charge be set forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offence the accused is charged with, and will enable him to make intelligent preparation for his defence, and if the trial goes against him, to plead his conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offence. State v. Webber, 78 Vt. 463, 62 A. 1018. A complaint which may apply to one of several definite offences without specifying which, was fatally defective at common law. 1 Whart. Cr. L., Par. 294; State v. Shadroui, 89 Vt. 520, 96 A. 8. It is equally defective under this constitutional requirement. The complaint before us breaks down when tested by this rule. There are several different ways in which one can be guilty of selling intoxicants illegally, each of which amounts to a distinct statutory offence, requiring different evidence to sustain or defend it. For instance, P. S. 5140...