INFORMATION. In French Law. The act or instrument which contains the deposi tions of witnesses against the accused. Pothier, Proc. Civ. sect. 2, art. 5.
In Practice. A complaint or accusation ex hibited against a person for some criminal offence. 4 Bla. Com. 308.
An accusation in the nature of an indict ment, from which it differs only in being presented by a competent public officer on his oath of office, instead of a grand jury on their oath. 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. § 141.
It differs in no respect from an indict Went in its form and substance, except that it is filed at the mere discretion of the proper law officer of the government, en ortcio, with out the intervention of a grand jury ; 4 Bla. Com. 308. The process has not been formally put in motion by congress for misdemeanors, but is common in civil prosecutions for penal ties and forfeitures ; 3 Story, Const. 659. The information is usually made upon knowl edge given by some other person than the of ficer called the relator. "It comes from the common law without the aid of statutes ; 5 Mod. 459; it is a concurrent remedy with indictment for all misdemeanors except mis prision of treason, but not permissible in any felony." Bish. Cr. Pr. § 14; Com. v. In habitants of Waterborough, 5 Mass. 257; Com. v. Barrett, 9 Leigh (Va.) 665.
As to the power of a legislature to dis pense with indictment, see INFAMOUS CRIME.
A state law which permits the prosecution of felonies by information does not violate the United States Constitution; Bolin v. Ne braska; 176 U. S. 83, 20 Sup. Ct. 287, 44 L. Ed. 382; and a legislature may modify or entirely abolish the constitutional provisions regarding the grand jury ; State v. Gugliel mo, 46 Or. 250, 79 Pac. 577, 80 Pac. 103, 69 L. R. A. 466, 7 Ann. Cas. 976.
Under United States laws, informations are resorted to for illegal exportation of goods ; U. S. v. Mann, 1 Gall. 3, Fed. Cas. No. 15,717 ; in cases of smuggling; U. S. v. Lyman, 1 Mas. 482, Fed. Cas. No. 15,647 ; and a libel for seizure is in the nature of an informa tion ; Sawyer v. Steele, 3 Wash. C. C. 464, Fed. Cas. No. 12,406 ; The Samuel, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 9, 4 L. Ed. 23. The provisions of the United States Constitution which provide that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment, etc., of a grand jury, have been held to apply only to the proceedings in the federal courts ; Whart. Cr. Pl. & Pr. 88 ; Notes v. State, 24 Ala. 672; State v. Keyes, 8 Vt. 57, 30 Am. Dec. 450.
An information is sufficiently formal if it follows the words of the statute; The Emily, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 381, 6 L. Ed. 116; Whiting v. State, 14 Conn. 487, 36 Am. Dec. 499 ; but enough must appear to show whether it is found under the statute or at.common law ; Knowles v. State, 3 Day (Conn.) 103. It must, however, allege the offence with suffi cient fulness and accuracy ; Whitney v. State, 10 Ind. 404; and must show all the facts demanding a forfeiture, as in a penal action, when it is to recover a penalty ; Corn. v. Messenger, 4 Mass. 462; Merriam v. Lang don, 10 Conn. 461.
An information cannot be made on "infor mation and belief" unless the facts are stat ed showing the source of information and the grounds of belief ; People v. Wyatt, 186
N. Y. 383, 79 N. E. 330, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 159, 9 Ann. Cas. 972.
Where it is for a first offence, the fact need not be stated; Kilbourn v. State, 9 Conn. 560 ; 'otherwise, where it is for a second or subsequent offence for which an additional penalty is provided ; Wilde v. Com., 2 Mete. (Mass.) 408. It need not show that there has been a preliminary examination or a waiver thereof ; State v. Geer, 48 Kan. 752, 30 Pac. 236. It cannot be amended by adding charg es; Corn. v. Rodes, 1 Dana (Ky.) 595 ; con tra, that it can be amended before trial ; State v. Rowley, 12 Conn. 101; State v. Weare, 38 N. H. 314 ; 1 Salk. 471. By the common law a mistake in an information may be amended at any time; State v. White, 64 Vt. 372, 24 Atl. 250. The information charging a statutory offence cannot be amended after verdict so as to include an other offence found by the jury ; Turner v. Dickerman, 88 Mich. 359, 50 N. W. 310. It must be signed by the officer before filing; State v. Nulf, 15 Kan. 404 ; but not necessa rily in Texas ; Rasberry v. State, 1 Tex. App. 664; and must conclude with "against the peace and dignity of the state ;" Wood v. State, 27 Tex. App. 538, 11 S. W. 525. In England, a verification was not required; but it is usually otherwise by statute in America ; Baramore v. State, 4 Ind. 524; District of Columbia v. Herlihy, 1 McArth. (D. C.) 466.
A part of the defendants may be acquitted and a part convicted ; State v. Taylor, 11 Root (Conn.) 226; and a conviction may be of the whole or a part of the offence charg ed; Hill v. Davis, 4 Mass. 137. In some states it is a proceeding by the state officer, filed at his own discretion; State v. Dover, 9 N. H. 468 ; Levy v. State, 6 Ind. 281; in others, leave of court may be granted to any relator to use the state officer's name, upon cause shown; Cullman v. Min. Co., 12 N. J. L. 84 ; Respublica v. Griffiths, 2 Dall. (U. S.) 112, 1 L. Ed. 311; Cleary v. Deliesseline, 1 McCord (S. C.) 35 ; State v. Deliesseline, id. 52. See State v. Terrebone, 45 La. Ann. 25, 12 South. 315. In England, the right to make an information was in the attorney-general, who acted without the interference of the court ; 3 Burr. 2089. In former times the officer proceeded upon any application, as of course ; 4 Term 285 ; but by an act passed in 1692, it was •provided that leave of court must be first obtained and security entered ; see 2 Term 190. It is said to be doubtful whether leave of court is necessary in this country ; 1 Bish. Cr. Pr. § 144. A prosecut ing officer may, on his own motion, present a bill to the grand jury, without presenting an affidavit charging the offence, if he deems it necessary for the public good; and his ac tion in doing so will be disturbed only in case of abuse of discretion; State v. Bow man, 43 S. C. 108, 20 S. E. 1010. It is suffi cient for the district attorney to be present in court when the accused first appears and there to ratify the information filed by his deputy in his absence ; State v. Guglielmo, 46 Or. 250, 79 Pac. 577, 80 Pac. 103, 69 L. R. A. 466, 7 Ann. Cas. 976.
See INDICTMENT; GRAND JURY; INFAMOUS CRIME.