92 Vt. 121 | Vt. | 1918
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
The danger of using this statutory form in these cases was brought to our attention in State v. Monte, 90 Vt. 566, 99 Atl. 264, and while the point was made too late to be availing in that ease, we took occasion to close the opinion with a broad hint of what the result of such use might be.
The defect is fundamental, it appears on the face of the record, and the motion must be sustained.
The judgment overruling the motion is reversed, the motion is sustained, judgment is arrested, and the respondent is discharged.