concurring.
I concur in the result on the narrow ground that the statutory form for charging the offense of theft set forth in Md.Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 344(a) satisfies the constitutional notice requirements embodied in Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. I do not, however, subscribe to the reasoning employed by the Court in reaching its conclusion. For this reason, I write separately.
In its campaign of late to reject challenges to the sufficiency of charging documents, the Court, in my judgment, has effectively ignored the constitutional right of a defendant to be informed of the accusation against him. Williams v. State, 302 Md. 787, 794, 490 A.2d 1277, 1281 (1985) (Cole, J., dissenting); Hall v. State, 302 Md. 806, 809, 490 A.2d 1287, 1288 (1985) (Cole, J., dissenting). This organic constitutional requirement, contained in both Article 21 and the sixth and fourteenth amendments of the federal Constitution, serves in part to put the defendant on notice of what he is called upon to defend by characterizing and describing the crime, and to protect the defendant from future prosecution for the same crime. See Ayre v. State, 291 Md. 155, 163, 433 A.2d 1150, 1155 (1981). To better understand what is and what is not involved in this case, it is necessary to contrast Williams v. State, supra, to the instant case.
The charging document in Williams purported to charge the common law offense of armed robbery by averring that the defendant “did rob” the victim of certain personal property. Although that charging document omitted the essential mental element of that offense, and despite the State’s failure to comply with the statutory short form for that common law offense under § 489 of Art. 27, the majority in Williams nonetheless found that that indictment passed constitutional muster. The Williams Court based this conclusion on the theory that the “common parlance” of “did rob” inferentially supplied the missing mental element for armed robbery. In so doing, the majority in that case by judicial fiat emasculated the constitutional *343notice requirements with no reasoned analysis. I continue to adhere to the views I expressed in Williams, but do so in the recognition that the case sub judice differs markedly from that in Williams.
Unlike the common law offense of armed robbery in Williams, this case involves the statutory offense of theft. In 1978, the General Assembly consolidated various common law larceny related offenses into a single offense designated as theft. See 1978 Md.Laws 849; see also Sibert v. State, 301 Md. 141, 145-46, 482 A.2d 483, 485-86 (1984) (discussing consolidated theft statute). One purpose of this consolidation was to abolish the “[p]etty distinctions which formerly provided the basis of separate and distinct crimes” so that prosecutors could use the simplified charging document form contained in § 344(a) of Art. 27. See Revision of Maryland Theft Laws and Bad Check Laws 30, ch. 849 of Acts of 1978, Md.Spec.Rpts. (Joint Subcommittee on Theft Related Offenses Oct. 1978) [hereinafter cited as Maryland Revision]. This simplified form provides:
(a) Indictment, information, warrant, or other charging document.—In any indictment, information, warrant, or other charging document for theft it is sufficient to use a formula substantially to the following effect: “that A—B on the ...... day of ........., 19____, in the County (City) aforesaid, did steal (here specifying the property or services stolen) of C—D, having a value of (less than $300 or greater) in violation of Article 27, § 342, of the Annotated Code of Maryland; contrary to the form of the Act of Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government and dignity of the State.”
In my view, the averment that the defendant “did steal” specified property of the named victim in violation of § 342 of Art. 27 sufficiently informs the defendant of the essential or material elements of the crime with which he is charged. The General Assembly is authorized to change or abrogate the common law as it may think most conducive to the general welfare, provided it does not in the process run *344afoul of the federal and state constitutions. See Attorney General v. Johnson, 282 Md. 274, 282, 385 A.2d 57, 62, appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 805, 99 S.Ct. 60, 58 L.Ed.2d 97 (1978). The General Assembly believed, and I agree, that it is unnecessary to specify in a charging document for theft any or all of the means by which that offense can be committed, such as (a) obtaining or exerting unauthorized control; (b) obtaining control by deception; (c) possession of stolen property; (d) obtaining control of lost, mislaid, or mistakenly delivered property; and (e) obtaining services by deception. See Art. 27, § 342. If the defendant desires additional facts concerning the offense, he may file a demand for a bill of particulars in accordance with former Md.Rule 730 a (now Md.Rule 4-241(a)). The legislature contemplated such a course of action in its report, observing that “because of the wide diversity of the aspects which are included within the crime of theft, the prosecution will undoubtedly be required to furnish the defendant with a bill of particulars.” Maryland Revision, supra, at 57. I therefore find no constitutional impediment to § 344(a) of Art. 27.