Case v. United States
| Decision Date | 29 August 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 4516.,4516. |
| Citation | 6 F.2d 530 |
| Parties | CASE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Dan E. Powers and Frank E. Swope, both of Portland, Or., for plaintiff in error.
George Neuner, U. S. Atty., and J. O. Stearns, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Portland, Or.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
GILBERT, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The single question presented on the writ of error is whether the indictment is so fatally defective that the court below erred in denying the motion in arrest of judgment and in entering judgment upon the verdict of the jury. It is contended that the indictment is defective for its failure to set forth the facts constituting the fraud and deception alleged to have been practiced by the defendant, and reliance is placed upon the rule of pleading which requires that an indictment shall not only be sufficient to inform the accused that he is charged with a criminal offense, but sufficiently specific to clearly inform him of what he has to meet, and thus to afford him a fair and reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense. The rule so invoked is well established. It is based upon two grounds: First, that the accused shall know distinctly the nature and elements of the accusation; and, second, that the offense must be so described as to make the judgment a complete defense to a second prosecution for the same offense. In the present case the first ground of the rule is met by the right to demand a bill of particulars. If the plaintiff in error was not sufficiently advised of the nature of the fraud and deceit which she was accused of having exercised, she should have demanded that the particulars be set forth. Durland v. United States, 161 U. S. 306, 316, 16 S. Ct. 508, 40 L. Ed. 709. As to the possible peril of a subsequent indictment for the same offense, it is sufficient to say that parol evidence to show the subject-matter of a former conviction or acquittal is always admissible, and that thus any uncertainty in an indictment may be rendered certain. Dunbar v. United States, 156 U. S. 185, 191, 15 S. Ct. 325, 39 L. Ed. 390; Bartell v. United States, 227 U. S. 427, 33 S. Ct. 383, 57 L. Ed. 583.
The indictment here follows the language of the statute, and that ordinarily is sufficient. Hall v. United States (C. C. A.) 277 F. 19; Ledbetter v. United States, 170 U. S. 606, 612, 18 S. Ct. 774, 42 L. Ed. 1162. Especially is this so in a case where the accused has gone to trial without objecting by demurrer or motion to the form of the indictment, and without demanding a bill of particulars. The plaintiff in error adverts to the fact that at the beginning of the trial her counsel objected to the reception of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Holland
...by failing to demur upon that ground before pleading to the merits. 42 C.J.S., Indictments and Informations, § 307; Case v. United States, 9 Cir., 6 F.2d 530.' State v. Smith, 182 Or. 497, 507, 188 P.2d 998. And see cases cited Under the uniform ruling of this court the defendant by failing......
-
Lilly v. Gladden
...example, by failing to demur upon that ground before pleading to the merits. 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 307; Case v. United States, 9 Cir., 6 F.2d 530.' It is our opinion that the plaintiff was lawfully convicted and that his sentence was lawfully imposed. Therefore, the demur......
-
People v. Covington, Docket No. 63206
...particular false pretense used. Specificity is not a jurisdictional defect, and the failure to object waives the issue. Case v. United States, 6 F.2d 530 (CA 9, 1925); State v. Puryear, 121 Ariz. 359, 590 P.2d 475 (1979); People v. Jackson, 88 Cal.App.3d 490, 151 Cal.Rptr. 688 (1978); State......
-
United States v. Crowder
...156 U.S. 185, 191, 15 S.Ct. 325, 39 L.Ed. 390, 392 (1895); United States v. Dickerson, 337 F.2d 343, 347 (CA 6, 1964); Case v. United States, 6 F.2d 530, 531 (CA 9, 1925); United States v. Merrick, 207 F. Supp. 929, 931 (W.D.Mo.1962). Thus the fact that the indictment formally relates only ......