emphasized the relaxation of strict common law pleading requirements. For example, in Crittenden v. State, 978 S.W.2d 929, 931 (Tenn.1998) (Birch, J., writing for the Court) (internal citations omitted), this Court declared: [W]e emphasize the fact that the Court has moved away from the strict pleading requirements adhered to under the common law. As we noted in Hill, “the purpose of the traditionally strict pleading requirement was the existence of common law offenses whose elements were not easily ascertained by reference to a statute. Such common law offenses no longer exist.” Were we to hold otherwise, we would be embracing technicalities that are empty and without reason. Likewise, in Ruff v. State, 978 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tenn.1998) (Birch, J., ) (Holder, J., writing for the Court) (<HOLDING>); Ruff, 978 S.W.2d at 100 (Tenn.1998) (Birch,
holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense holding that the giving of a felony murder instruction is not a relevant mitigating circumstance when the defendant acted alone to kill the victim holding that reference to the appropriate statute was sufficient in felony murder indictments alleging that the defendant did unlawfully kill the victims during the perpetration of aggravated robbery in violation of tca 3913202 holding that the eighth amendment requires finding that a felony murder defendant killed or attempted to kill holding an indictment alleging that the defendant did unlawfully kill the victim during the perpetration of aggravated robbery in violation of tca 3913202 sufficient because it contained a specific reference to the statute which was sufficient to place the accused on notice of the charged offense