Opinion ID: 2344868
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Statutory Form

Text: Mr. Edmund's argument principally relies on CL § 3-206, which sets forth a sufficient form of charging document for offenses under CL § 3-202. In relevant part, § 3-206 reads: (a) AssaultIn general. An indictment, information, other charging document, or warrant for a crime described in § 3-202 . . . is sufficient if it substantially states: `(name of defendant) on (date) in (county) assaulted (name of victim) in the ......... degree or (describe other violation) in violation of (section violated) against the peace, government, and dignity of the State.' (b) SameBill of particulars. If the general form of indictment or information described in subsection (a) of this section is used to charge a crime described in § 3-202 . . . in a case in the circuit court, the defendant, on timely demand, is entitled to a bill of particulars. Because this statute contemplates that the name of victim will be inserted in the form, the subject indictment does not conform to the statute. The statute, however, is not intended to be exclusive, or to deny legal sufficiency to charging documents that do not strictly follow the suggested form. Jurisprudence under the statutory short form of indictment for criminal homicide demonstrates that that statutory form, now CL § 2-208, is not the exclusive mode of pleading. A short form of indictment for criminal homicides first was enacted by Chapter 248 of the Acts of 1906. This form may, but need not, be used in lieu of the common law forms. State v. Ward, 284 Md. 189, 200, 396 A.2d 1041, 1048 (1978). See also Wooten-Bey v. State, 308 Md. 534, 537-38, 520 A.2d 1090, 1091-92, cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057, 107 S.Ct. 2199, 95 L.Ed.2d 853 (1987); Duley v. State, 56 Md.App. 275, 278, 467 A.2d 776, 778 (1983). There is no indication that the General Assembly intended the short form of indictment for first degree assault to be any more exclusive than the short form for criminal homicide. The question then becomes, Does the common law currently require a victim to be identified by name in a charging document alleging assault?