Brown v. Hudspeth, No. 1823.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit |
| Citation | 103 F.2d 958 |
| Parties | BROWN v. HUDSPETH, Warden. |
| Docket Number | No. 1823. |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1939 |
103 F.2d 958 (1939)
BROWN
v.
HUDSPETH, Warden.
No. 1823.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
May 8, 1939.
C. M. Stokes, of Leavenworth, Kan., for appellant.
Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., and Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The petitioner, Rufus Brown, was charged by indictment containing two counts with violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 398. He was tried and found guilty on the first count and sentenced to serve a term of five years in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, where he is now confined.
The caption of the indictment reads as follows:
"At a stated term of the District Court of the United States of America for the District of Minnesota held at the City of Saint Paul within and for the District and Division aforesaid, on the first Tuesday in April, being the seventh day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six, by a duly empaneled, charged, and sworn Grand Jury of the United States of America within and for said District, it is presented in manner and form following, that is to say:"
Then follows the charging part of count one which charges the offense to have been committed on the 29th day of April, 1936. The indictment bears the endorsement, "Filed Sept. 18, 1936." Because of the recitals in the caption, petitioner contends that the indictment was returned prior to the date it alleges the crime was committed and is, therefore, void.
We regard the contention as wholly without merit.
The first day of the regular April, 1936, term of the district court was Tuesday, April 7. No doubt, the grand jury was impaneled on that day and continued in session from time to time until September 18, 1936, when the indictment was filed. At least, there is nothing in the petition or the proofs adduced showing such were not the facts.
The caption is no part of the indictment. It is merely the record of the court and errors therein may be corrected by amendment.1 The fact that the caption contains an erroneous statement as to the time when the indictment was found is not a fatal defect which vitiates the indictment.2 The rule has been applied to cases where the caption recited that the indictment was found prior to the date the offense was alleged to have been committed.3
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stillman v. United States, No. 11381.
...by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(a), (g), 18 U.S.C.A.. 3 Carney v. United States, supra; Brown v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 103 F.2d 958; Edgerton v. United States, 9 Cir., 143 F.2d 697; United States v. Fawcett, 3 Cir., 115 F.2d 764, 132 A.L.R. 404; Barnard v. United States, 9 Cir.,......
-
CUPPLES COMPANY MANUF'RS v. National Labor R. Board, No. 426
...did not personally consider the evidence, but relied upon the summary, suggestions, and recommendations of Miss Farmer and others. In the 103 F.2d 958 first Morgan case, 298 U.S. 468, 56 S.Ct. 906, 80 L.Ed. 1288, it was alleged that the Secretary of Agriculture made a rate order without hav......
-
USA v. Gama-Bastidas, GAMA-BASTIDA
...a caption that contained an error or conflicted with the body of an indictment created a fatal defect. See, e.g., Brown v. Hudspeth, 103 F.2d 958, 959 (10th Cir. 1939); United States v. Ebolum, 72 F.3d 35, 39 (6th Cir. 1995). Here, we have neither an error in the caption nor a conflict betw......
-
Stillman v. United States, No. 11381.
...by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(a), (g), 18 U.S.C.A.. 3 Carney v. United States, supra; Brown v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 103 F.2d 958; Edgerton v. United States, 9 Cir., 143 F.2d 697; United States v. Fawcett, 3 Cir., 115 F.2d 764, 132 A.L.R. 404; Barnard v. United States, 9 Cir.,......
-
CUPPLES COMPANY MANUF'RS v. National Labor R. Board, No. 426
...did not personally consider the evidence, but relied upon the summary, suggestions, and recommendations of Miss Farmer and others. In the 103 F.2d 958 first Morgan case, 298 U.S. 468, 56 S.Ct. 906, 80 L.Ed. 1288, it was alleged that the Secretary of Agriculture made a rate order without hav......
-
USA v. Gama-Bastidas, GAMA-BASTIDA
...a caption that contained an error or conflicted with the body of an indictment created a fatal defect. See, e.g., Brown v. Hudspeth, 103 F.2d 958, 959 (10th Cir. 1939); United States v. Ebolum, 72 F.3d 35, 39 (6th Cir. 1995). Here, we have neither an error in the caption nor a conflict betw......