Task: Text Completion
Input (English): for the Court), this Court declared, “[b]y this ruling, we wish to make clear that the Court has relaxed the strict pleading requirements of common law.” Again, just last year, in State v. Barney, 986 S.W.2d 545, 546 (Tenn.1999) (Birch, J., writing for the Court), this Court noted, “[i]n conclusion, we wish to emphasize once again the fact that the Court has moved away from the strict pleading requirements of common law.” Relaxation of the strict pleading requirements of the common law is also apparent from recent decisions of this Court holding that an indictment which references the statute defining the offense is sufficient and satisfies the constitutional and statutory requirements of Hill. See State v. Sledge, 15 S.W.3d 93, 94 (Tenn.2000) (Holder, J., writing for the Court) (<HOLDING>); State v. Carter, 988 S.W.2d 145, 148 
 Holding statements: (A) holding an indictment alleging that the defendant did unlawfully kill the victim during the perpetration of aggravated robbery in violation of tca 3913202 sufficient because it contained a specific reference to the statute which was sufficient to place the accused on notice of the charged offense (B) holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense (C) holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself (D) holding that an allegation as to the time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and within reasonable time limits proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient (E) holding that reference to the appropriate statute was sufficient in felony murder indictments alleging that the defendant did unlawfully kill the victims during the perpetration of aggravated robbery in violation of tca 3913202
Output (English): (A)