Court Opinion

ID: 9572587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:42:58.738331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:33.943314
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(concurring) — The dissent approves the practice of orally charging a person with a crime. This is unknown in the law of all civilized nations and departs from all known due process, contrary to Const, art. 1, § 3.
Article 1, section 22 provides that, in a criminal prosecution, an accused has the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and "to have a copy *442thereof". (Italics mine.)
Most persons who are charged with a crime know what they have done. The State has the duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the crime charged. This cannot be done without a written charge. It is necessary for the purpose of framing the issues to advise the jury, and to be certain that the conduct did violate the statute. A written charge is also necessary to be certain a person is not twice put in jeopardy.
For the reasons expressed by the majority, I concur.
Pearson, J., concurs with Rosellini, J.