Court Opinion

ID: 9865807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 21:05:03.794623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:55:24.263288
License: Public Domain

Martin, C. J.,
concurs, but believes that the words “contrary to the form of the statute, etc., in the affidavit should be held sufficient to charge that the act was “unlawful,'' as was done in State v. Tibbetts (1893), 86 Me. 189, 29 Atl. 979; People v. Strieker (1912), 170 Ill. App. 485; Commonwealth v. Twitchell (1849), 4 Cush. (Mass.) 74, and McCaskill v. State (1908), 55 Fla. 117, 45 So. 843. He points out that since no common-law offenses exist in this state (all crimes and misdemeanors being fixed by statute and not otherwise, §2400 Burns 1926), such words are unnecessary as a phrase to distinguish between statutory and common-law crimes, and that the words should be given their plain, ordinary meaning, which is the equivalent of “unlawful.''