With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding that an indictment phrased in the statutory language was sufficient to satisfy ors 1325507
C: holding that an indictment that is substantially in the language of the code is sufficient inform and substance
D: holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense
B.