Kline v. State

Citations

• 44 Miss. 317
• 2 Morr. St. Cas. 1695

Syllabus

<p>1. Indictment — Staxotoky oeeense — Desokbjtion—Ceutainty.—The general rale st ated in several case3 (5 How., 242; 13 S. & SI., 263; 23 Sliss., 521), that “indictments on statutes must state all tho circumstances which constitute tho definition of the offense in the act, that theymust pursue the precise technicallanguageemployed in tho statute defining the offense,” is a little too broad andgeneral. Rev. Codo, 573, art. 7, supplies a rule of absolute force. “Merely formal and technical words shall not be deemed nocessary (in indictmonts), so the offenso be certainly and substantially described thorein.” And the indictment would be good although the “ precise technical language of tho statute” be omitted; provided, tho offonse is “certainly and substantially” described in other words of equivalent import.</p> <p>2. Samé. — Where the enacting clause of the statute describes the offense with certain exceptions, it is necessary to state all the circumstances that constitute the offense, and to negative tho exceptions; hut if the exceptions are contained in sepa-</p> <p>. rate clauses of the statute, they maybe omitted in the indictment, and the defendant must show that his case comes within them, to avail himself of then- benefit. 2 Nott & McCord, 365; 24 Maine, 232; 34 N. H., 422; 1 Leach, 102.</p> <p>3. Indictment — -Amendment—Pbactioe.—The indictmont omitted to negative the exception by inserting the words, “not being a druggist or apothecary,’1 as contained in tho enacting clause of tho statuto. This negation being material, the statute does not authorize the court, at a subsequent term, to allow an amendment by inserting the words of the oxception.</p>