In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation entitles the defendant to insist that the indictment apprise him of the crime charged with such reasonable certainty that he can make his defense and protect himself after judgment against another prosecution on the same charge.1 Footnote
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 544, 558 (1876) ; United States v. Simmons, 96 U.S. 360 (1878) ; Bartell v. United States, 227 U.S. 427 (1913) ; Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344 (1906) . No indictment is sufficient if it does not allege all of the ingredients that constitute the crime. Where the language of a statute is, according to the natural import of the words, fully descriptive of the offense, it is sufficient if the indictment follows the statutory phraseology,2 Footnote
Potter v. United States, 155 U.S. 438, 444 (1894) . but where the elements of the crime have to be ascertained by reference to the common law or to other statutes, it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute. The facts necessary to bring the case within the statutory definition must also be alleged.3 Footnote
United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1882) . If an offense cannot be accurately and clearly described without an allegation that the accused is not within an exception contained in the statutes, an indictment that does not contain such allegation is defective.4 Footnote
United States v. Cook, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 168, 174 (1872) . Despite the omission of obscene particulars, an indictment in general language is good if the unlawful conduct is described so as reasonably to inform the accused of the nature of the charge sought to be established against him.5 Footnote
Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29, 40 (1896) . The Constitution does not require the government to furnish a copy of the indictment to an accused.6 Footnote
United States v. Van Duzee, 140 U.S. 169, 173 (1891) . The right to notice of accusation is so fundamental a part of procedural due process that the states are required to observe it.7 Footnote
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 (1948) ; Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948) ; Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313 (1972) .
Footnotes 1 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 544, 558 (1876) ; United States v. Simmons, 96 U.S. 360 (1878) ; Bartell v. United States, 227 U.S. 427 (1913) ; Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344 (1906) . 
2 Potter v. United States, 155 U.S. 438, 444 (1894) . 3 United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1882) . 4 United States v. Cook, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 168, 174 (1872) . 5 Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29, 40 (1896) . 6 United States v. Van Duzee, 140 U.S. 169, 173 (1891) . 7 In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 (1948) ; Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948) ; Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313 (1972) .
The following state regulations pages link to this page.
