People v. Guaragna

LENNON, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime commonly called abortion, and which is defined by section 274 of the Penal Code. She has appealed from the judgment, and from an order denying her motion for a new trial.

The charging part of the information was not demurrable upon the ground of uncertainty. Primarily the purpose of precision in pleading the particulars of a crime is to preclude the possibility of a second prosecution for the same act and at the same time to inform the defendant with reasonable eer

[122]

tainty of that which he will he called upon to meet and defend against upon the trial.

The information in the present ease alleged in the language of the statute the doing of every act essential to the commission of the crime as defined by section 274 of the Penal Code, and specifically charged that such crime was committed by the use of “instruments in and about,and within the body” of the person named as the victim of the alleged abortion. This being so, it is obvious that the judgment of conviction in the present case could be readily and successfully pleaded as a bar to a second prosecution of the defendant for the acts charged in the present information. True, the information did not by name or description indicate the character of the instruments alleged to have been employed in the commission of the offense, nor did it specify the manner in whch such instruments were used. Nevertheless, in its entirety it fairly and with sufficient certainty informed the defendant of all that was reasonably necessary for her to know in order to prepare and present an intelligent and honest defense. It was not absolutely necessary to allege the name of the instrument used to produce the abortion.

(State

v.

Reed,

45 Ark. 333;

Commonwealth

v.

Noble,

165 Mass. 13, [42 N. E. 328];

Commonwealth