requires that the indictment conform to ORS 132.550(7).” State v. Morgan, 151 Or App 750, 753 n 4, 951 P2d 187 (1997), rev den, 327 Or 82 (1998) (emphasis omitted). Under ORS 132.550(7), an indictment must contain a “statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended [,]” We begin with defendant’s argument that the indictment was insufficiently specific because it failed to specifically identify the unnamed “others.” “[A]s this court so many times has held, an indictment generally is sufficient if it charges an offense in the words of the statute.” Hale, 335 Or at 621; see also State v. Fitzpatrick, 149 Or App 246, 249, 942 P2d 819 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, “as a matter of law, the
holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense holding that an indictment phrased in the statutory language was sufficient to satisfy ors 1325507 holding that an indictment under  922g1 was not required to allege a substantial effect on interstate commerce an indictment which tracked the statutory language was sufficient holding that an indictment that is substantially in the language of the code is sufficient inform and substance holding that the indictment was sufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement since it alleged that the defendants conduct occurred over a period of eight years