and the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer and whether he may plead an acquittal or conviction thereon.”); Browning v. State, 320 S.C. 366, 368, 465 S.E.2d 358, 359 (1995) ("The true test of the sufficiency of an indictment is not whether it could be made more definite and certain, but whether it contains the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.”). 3 . Compare S.C.Code Ann. § 16-11-330(A) (Supp.2000) ("A person who commits robbery while armed with a pistol ... or while alleging, either by action or words, he was armed while using a representation of a deadl 1974) (characterizing grand larceny as a common law offense); Copeland v. Manning, 234 S.C. 510, 109 S.E.2d 361 (1959) (<HOLDING>); State v. Haynie, 221 S.C. 45, 47, 68 S.E.2d
holding that the states evidence that defendant stole money from a purse after he entered the apartment was substantial evidence that he had the intent to commit larceny when he entered the apartment and finding no error in the trial courts failure to submit the lesserincluded offense of misdemeanor breaking and entering to the jury recognizing the abolition of common law petit larceny with the 1866 enactment of a statute which defined petit larceny as simple larceny of goods below the value of 20 recognizing common law grand larceny as separate and distinct from the statutory offense of breaking and entering with intent to steal recognizing petit and grand larceny as merely two separate degrees of larceny not elements of the offense recognizing a charge of common law grand larceny as the basis of an action for malicious prosecution