61 Ala. 151 | Ala. | 1878
Indictments, under our statute, Code of 1876, section 4785, “ must state the facts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without prolixity or repetition, in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended, and with that degree of certainty which will enable the court, on conviction, to pronounce the proper judgment.” The Code contains many forms of indictment, which were intended to supplant the verbose forms used at common law; and the statute, Code of 1876, § 4824, declares that these “forms of indictments, in all cases in which they are applicable, are sufficient; and analogous forms may be used in other cases.” Many of these forms, tested by common law principles, are wanting in many material averments, yet, we have uniformly held they are sufficient. “ Where a statute creates a new offense, unknown to the common law, and describes its constituents, it is sufficient to charge the offense in the language of the statute. 1 Brick. Dig. 499, § 734.
The indictment in this case conforms to the statute. It avers that Jones and Johnson, alias Cunningham, were, at the time, confined in the jail of Dallas county under a charge of the criminal offense of burglary, and that defendant did convey into the county jail of Dallas county an auger, an instrument useful for the purpose, with the intent to aid and facilitate their escape from said confinement in said jail. Every species of burglary under our statutes is a felony.— Code of 1876, §§ 4343, 4344. The indictment avers that the prisoners were confined on a charge of burglary. This is an averment that their imprisonment was under a charge of felony. The indictment is sufficient, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.