State v. Villa

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

102 A. 935

STATE.

v. VILLA.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington.

Jan. 11, 1918.

Exceptions from City Court of Barre; H. William Scott, Judge.

Adalgisa Villa was prosecuted for illegal liquor selling, verdict of guilty returned, her motion in arrest of judgment overruled, and she excepts. Judgment overruling motion reversed, motion sustained, judgment arrested, and respondent discharged.

Argued before WATSON, C. J., and HASELTON, POWERS, TAYLOR, and MILES, JJ.

Earl R. Davis, State's Atty., of Barre, for the State.

Richard A. Hoar, of Barre, for respondent

POWERS, J. 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 chapter 1, art. 10, of the Constitution of our state that:

"In all prosecutions for criminal offenses, 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. 760, 1 Ann. Cas. 495; Commonwealth v. B. & O. R. Co., 223 Pa. 23, 72 Atl. 278, 132 Am. St. Rep. 723; TJ. 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 offense the accused is charged with, and will enable him to make intelligent preparation for his defense, and, if the trial goes against him, to plead his conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. State v. Webber, 78 Vt. 463, 62 Atl. 1918. A complaint which may apply to one of several definite offenses without specifying which, was fatally defective at common law. 1 Whart. Cr. L. par. 294; State v. Shadroui, 89 Vt. 520, 96 Atl. S. 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 offense, requiring different evidence to sustain or defend it....