State v. Bruce
Supreme Court of Vermont
Complaint for breach of the peace, before the City Court of Barre. Heard upon general demurrer, April 30, 1895. Demurrer overruled. It is not sufficient to charge the offense in the language of the statute. The complaint must name the persons upon or against whom the acts were committed or threatened. State v. Matthews, 42 Vt. 542; State v. Hanley, 47 Yt. 290; State v. Coffin, 64 Vt. 25. The complaint is sufficient.
Read the full summary
Complaint for breach of the peace, before the City Court of Barre. Heard upon general demurrer, April 30, 1895. Demurrer overruled. It is not sufficient to charge the offense in the language of the statute. The complaint must name the persons upon or against whom the acts were committed or threatened. State v. Matthews, 42 Vt. 542; State v. Hanley, 47 Yt. 290; State v. Coffin, 64 Vt. 25. The complaint is sufficient. It charges a breach of the peace in one of the modes pointed out by the statute and sets forth the acts by which the offense was committed. R. L. 4228; State v. Benedict, 11 Yt.…
1Opinion of the CourtRowell, J.
The complaint, which is demurred to, alleges that the prisoner, on such a day, disturbed the peace by “threatening to strike, beat, injure, and assault divers and sundry persons,” etc., but does not name any of them nor allege that their names were unknown-. It is fundamental in the law of criminal pleading that the name of the person injured, or against or upon whom the offense is committed, must be stated if known. The reason is, that thereby the offense is more certainly identified,. and made more specific instead of being left general; the prisoner is better enabled to make his defense,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. CoffinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1891
- State v. HoverSupreme Court of Vermont · 1886
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. RowellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1898