our focus is on the information. An information which alleges the commission of a crime using the language of the statute which defines that crime is generally sufficient. State v. Bowen, 244 Neb. 204, 505 N.W.2d 682 (1993). Moreover, an information must apprise a defendant with reasonable certainty of the charge against him so that he may prepare a defense to the prosecution and be able to plead the judgment of conviction as a bar to a later prosecution for the same offense. State v. Beermann, 231 Neb. 380, 436 N.W.2d 499 (1989); State v. Piskorski, 218 Neb. 543, 357 N.W.2d 206 (1984). These requirements are imposed by the U.S. Constitution. See, State v. Harig, 192 Neb. 49, 218 N.W.2d 884 (1974); Bartell v. United States, 227 U.S. 427, 431, 33 S. Ct. 383, 57 L. Ed. 583 (1913) (<HOLDING>). This has long been the law in Nebraska, and
holding that indictment sufficiently informed defendant of the charge against him so as to enable him to prepare a defense and thus there is no claim that he was surprised at trial holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding that it is elementary that an indictment under the us constitution shall advise the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in order that he may meet the accusation and prepare for his trial and that after judgment he may be able to plead the record and judgment in bar of further prosecution for the same offense recognizing that an indictment must contain the elements of the offense charged fairly inform a defendant of the charge and enable the defendant to plead double jeopardy as a defense in a future prosecution for the same offense holding that the state has the right to elect in which county the offense may be prosecuted where the jurisdiction is concurrent under the statutes and until the final judgment which operates as a bar to further prosecution in either county the states right of selection of the forum continues