INDICTMENT. A written accusation against one or more persons of a crime or misdemeanor, presented to, and preferred up on oath or affirmation by, a grand jury legal ly convoked. 4 Bla. Corn. 299.; Co. Litt. 126 ; 2 Hale, Pl. Cr. 152.
An accusation at the suit of the crown, found to be true by the oaths of a grand jury (q. v.).
A written accusation of a crime presented upon oath by a grand jury.
The word is said to be derived from the old French word inditer, which signifies to indicate, to show, or point out. Its object is to indicate the offence charged against the accused. Rey, des Inst. tome 2, p. 347.
A presentment and indictment differ ; 2 Inst. 739. A presentment is properly that which the grand jurors find and present to the court from their own knowledge or ob servation. Every indictment which is found by the grand jurors is presented by them to the court ; and therefore every indictment is a presentment, but not every presentment is an indictment ; Com. v. Keefe, 9 Gray (Mass.) 291; Story, Const. § 1784. An in dictment is required under United States laws for capital or otherwise infamous crimes, but an information is authorized in many states ; Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73, 24 Sup. Ct. 605, 48 L. Ed. 882, where it is said that an indictment is prima facie evi dence of probable cause. See the require ments of an indictment in Pettibone v. U. S., 148 U. S. 204, 13 Sup. Ct. 542, 37 L. Ed. 413.
The essential requisites of a valid indict ment are,—first, that the indictment be pre sented to some court having jurisdiction of the offence stated therein ; and the indict ment must allege specifically that the crime was committed within its jurisdiction ; Mc Coy v. State, 22 Neb. 418, 35 N. W. 202 ; Orr v. State, 25 Tex. App. 453, 8 S. W. 644; Smith v. State, 25 Tex. App. 454, 8 S. W. 645 ; State v. Hobbs, 37 W. Va. 812, 17 S. E. 380; second, that it appear to have been found by the grand jury of the proper coun ty or district ; third, that the indictment be found a true bill, and signed by the foreman of the grand jury ; fourth, that it be framed with sufficient certainty; for this purpose the charge must contain a certain descrip tion of the crime or misdemeanor of which the defendant is accused, and a statement of the facts by which it is constituted, so as to identify the accusation ; 2 Hale, PL Cr. 167;
Stewart v. Com., 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 194 ; 4 Bla. Com. 301; Brown v. State, 26 Tex. App. 540, 10 S. W. 112; it should set out the material facts charged against the accused ; State v. O'Flaherty, 7 Nev. 153 ; Pettibone v. U. S., 148 U. S. 197, 13 Sup. Ct. 542, 37 L. Ed. 419; the ultimate facts and not the evidence; Brown v. U. S., 143 Fed. 60, 74 C. C. A. 214; but need not specify the statute on which founded ; Crabb v. State, 88 Ga. 584, 15 S. IA 455. An indictment may charge a statutory offence in the language of the statute with out greater particularity when, by that means, all that is essential to constitute the offence is stated fully and directly, without uncertainty or ambiguity ; State v. Light, 17 Or. 358, 21 Pan. 132 ; State v. Howe, 100 N. C. 449, 5 S. E. 671; State v. Holmes, 40 La.
Ann. 170, 3 South. 564; fifth, the indictment must be in the English language. But if any document in a foreign language, as a libel, be necessarily introduced, it should be set out In the original tongue, and then trans lated, showing its application ; 6 Term 162.
Each count is, as it were, a separate indict ment ; Selvester v. U. S., 170 U. S. 262, 18 Sup. Ct. 580, 42 L. Ed. 1029. Intent must be averred If a part of the offence ; U. S. v. Clark, 125 Fed. 92.
The formal requisites are: First, the venue, which at common law should always be laid in the county where the offence has been committed, although the charge be in its nature transitory, as a bat tery ; Hawk. Pl. Cr. b. 2, c. 25, s. 35. See People v. Scott, 74 Cal. 94, 15 Pae. 384. The venue is stated In the margin thus: "City and county of , to wit." Second, the presentment, which must be in the present tense, and is usually expressed by the following formula: "The grand in quest of the commonwealth of , inquir ing for the city and county aforesaid, upon their oaths and affirmations present." See, as to the venue, Graham v. State, 1 Ark. 171; Hite v. State, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 357 ; Turns v. Com., 6 Mete. (Mass.) 225 ; People v. Wong Wang, 92 Cal. 277, 28 Pae. 270.