189 P. 242 | Idaho | 1920
Appellant was convicted of having herded, grazed and pastured sheep on a cattle range in violation of C. S., sec. 8333. He questions the sufficiency of the complaint to charge the commission of a crime, and points out that it is not alleged therein that the acts complained of were committed wrongfully, unlawfully, intentionally or knowingly.
Bespondent’s brief dismisses this contention with the following observation: “The complaint is in the language of the statute, which seems to render it sufficient.”
It is said in 22 Cyc. 339: “Although the rule is frequently stated to be that it is sufficient .to charge a statutory offense in the language of the statute creating it, such rule is accurate only in those cases in which the statute defines and describes the offense, and is better stated with such qualification. The words of the statute must fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished, and must state all the material facts and circumstances embraced in the definition of the offense. Ingredients which do not enter into the statutory definition must be added.” (State v. Scheminisky, 31 Ida. 504, 174 Pac. 611; State v. Cole, 31 Ida. 603, 174 Pac. 131.)
Tested by the' rules of law above quoted, this complaint is insufficient. The judgment appealed from is reversed.
