Dеfendants were convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, in the District Court of Iron Cоunty, and appeal.
Before pleading in the District Court, defendants moved to quash the information, alleging certain irregularities in the conduct of the preliminary examination, аnd also “that said purported complaint * * * did not in other material respects cоnform to the requirements of the laws of Utah concerning criminal complaints.” The District Court denied the motion to quash and this refusal is defendants* first assignment of error.
*517 Sec. 105-11-1, U. C. A. 1943, dealing with the сontents of criminal complaints provides:
“The complaint must state:
“(1) The name of the person accused, if known; or if not known and it is so stated, he may be designated by any other name.
“(5) The person аgainst whom or against whose property the offense was committed, if known.* * *”
The charging portion of the complaint herein reads:
“That he did then аnd there willfully and unlawfully commit an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon.”
Defendants urge that the complaint is insufficient for failure to name the persоn assaulted.
The latest expression of this court upon the necessity of pleading thе name of the person injured by criminal conduct is in
State
v.
Crank & Chief,
“If the name of the victim is known it should be alleged. If unknown, is should be alleged that the victim was a human being, or words of equal import, whose name was to the accuser unknown. * * * There must, however, be some facts then supplied to identify the victim, to enable the defendant to prepare his defense, and to identify thе crime, for the protection of defendant, in case defendant is acquitted, or placed in jeopardy and again charged with the same offense. Under the short form рleading, however, these facts need not be alleged in the information. They are to be supplied by the Bill of Particulars, if defendant desires to have them.”
There the court wаs dealing with a complaint and information which merely alleged murder of a human being name unknown, but the rule was recognized that the name must be alleged, if known. And in
State
v.
Jessup,
“We thus start out with the proposition that under our procеdure a criminal prosecution must be initiated by filing’ a complaint in writing which must be verified by the cоmplainant; that such complaint, among other things, must state * * * the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed, and a general descriptiоn of the property if property is the subject of the offense.”
This rule has also been recognized by other courts. In
State
v.
Meadows,
“The defect here complained of is, that the person murdered is not designatеd. This defect is believed to be fatal. The averment that the persons indicted, feloniоusly, and willfully, and of their malice aforethough, did kill and murder, without anything more, does not amount to any charge against them which the law can recognize.”
In
Johnson
v.
State,
“That the name of the injured party must be alleged by the grand jury, if that name is known; and, if not known, it should allege that *519 fact, and give as clear a description of the injured party as the facts before them will permit.” To the same effect, see also State v. Griffin,48 La. Ann. 1409 ,20 So. 905 ; Bohannon v. State, 14 Tex. App. 271, 299; Ogden v. State, 15 Tex. Aрp. 454; Runyon v. State,219 Ind. 352 ,38 N. E. 2d 235 ; Warren on Homicide, Vol. 2, Sec. 171.
In view of the foregoing authorities, we hold that the complaint herein was fatally defective, and did not state a public offense. Therefore defendants’ motion to quash the information should have been granted. As this necessitates a reversal оf the case, we shall not discuss the various other errors assigned by defendants.
Case reversed and remanded for such further proceedings as authorized by law.