PETTRY v. STATE

Thomas M. Haas, and J. D. Quinlivan, Jr., Mobile, for appellant. It is error to overrule a demurrer to an indictment charging the sale of marijuana, when the indictment fails to allege the name of the vendee to whom the prohibited substance was allegedly sold. Duin v. State, 47 Ala. App. 693, 260 So.2d 599; Gayden v. State, 38 Ala. App. 39, 80 So.2d 495. It is error to deny defendant's requested affirmative charge where the indictment would not, absent the identity of the purchaser support a conviction for the offense of selling marijuana. Duin v. State, supra. William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Herbert H. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. An indictment which uses the language of a statute which creates a new crime unknown to the common law is sufficient to support a judgment of conviction of the offense. State v. Briley, 8 Port. 472; State v. Duncan, 9 Port. 260; Clark v. State, 19 Ala. 552; Thomas v. State, 166 Ala. 166, 47 So. 257; Jackson v. State, 236 Ala. 75, 182 So. 83.