We granted interlocutory appeal in this criminal case to consider the practice of identifying a minor victim by initials in a charging document. Because this practice does not put a defendant on notice of the particular person against whom the defendant allegedly committed a crime, we conclude that —in a charging instrument challenged pre-trial —the victim’s initials are insufficient. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court below. Scotty Sellers was indicted in the Superior Court of Franklin County for aggravated child molestation and child molestation premised upon acts Sellers allegedly committed against a minor child identified in the indictment as “S.C.” Sellers specially demurred to the indictment, contending the identification of the victim only by initials “failed to furnish the Defendant with an indictment perfect in form as required by law.” The trial court denied the special demurrer, finding that, the indictment is sufficient in form, in that, Defendant is adequately apprized of the identity of the victim that he could not be subsequently prosecuted for offenses against this victim after a decision on the merits in the present case. Held :
An indictment is the method whereby the State initiates a process that may result in imprisonment; as such, an indictment is a charging instrument with serious consequences. For this reason, it has long been the law that “a defendant is entitled to a charging instrument that is perfect in form as well as substance.”1 In that regard, for the protection of the accused it is necessary that, in an indictment for an offense against the person of another, the person injured should be referred to by his correct name, if it be known.2 Here, Sellers specially demurred to the indictment in a timely fashion because of the use of initials in place of the minor victim’s name. A special demurrer objects to the form of an indictment or seeks more information. Under the law, the information Seller’s sought he was entitled to have of right. Thus, the indictment was demurrable. The trial court’s ruling was error.
