Lester Bartell v. United States

• Decision Date: 24 February 1913
• Docket Number: No. 691,691
• Citation: 33 S.Ct. 383,227 U.S. 427,57 L.Ed. 583
• Parties: LESTER P. BARTELL, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

227 U.S. 427

33 S.Ct. 383

57 L.Ed. 583

LESTER P. BARTELL, Plff. in Err.,

v UNITED STATES.

No. 691.

Argued and submitted January 14, 1913.

Decided February 24, 1913.

Mr. Joe Kirby for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 427-429 intentionally omitted] Solicitor General Bullitt for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 429 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error was indicted under § 3893 of the Revised Statutes, (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2658), which declares certain matter unmailable, for depositing a letter alleged to be obscene, in a postoffice of the United States. Upon trial he was convicted, and was sentenced to a term in the penitentiary. The case is brought here to review alleged errors in failing to sustain objections made to the indictment in the court below.

The indictment charged that Bartell did on the 24th of November, 1911, at Sioux Falls, in the county of Minnehaha, state of South Dakota, unlawfully, wilfully, knowingly, and feloniously deposit in the United States postoffice at Sioux Falls aforesaid, for mailing and delivery by the postoffice establishment of the United States, certain nonmailable matter, to wit: 'A letter inclosed in an envelop, which said letter was then and there filthy, obscene, lewd, lascivious, and of an indecent character, and is too filthy, obscene, lewd, offensive, and of such indecent character as to be unfit to be set forth in this indictment and to be spread at length upon the records of this honorable court. Therefore the grand jurors, aforesaid, do not set forth the same in this indictment; and which said envelop containing said letter was then and there directed to and addressed as follows: Miss Zella Delleree, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, he, the said Lester P Bartell, then and there well knowing the contents of said letter and the character thereof, and well knowing the same to be filthy, obscene, lewd, and lascivious, and of an indecent character.'

The plaintiff in error appeared and demurred to this indictment for the reasons following:

'I. That the facts stated in said indictment are not sufficient to and do not constitute a crime.

'II. That no facts are stated sufficient to notify this defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation for which he is now placed on trial, as required by article 6 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.'

The court overruled the demurrer. The same objection, in substance, was taken by motion in arrest of judgment after conviction, and the question presented here is the alleged insufficiency of the indictment.

It is elementary that an indictment, in order to be good under the Federal Constitution and laws, shall advise the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, in order that he may meet the accusation and prepare for his trial, and that, after judgment, he may be able to plead the record and judgment in bar of further prosecution for the same offense.

While it is true that ordinarily a document or writing essential to the charge of crime must be sufficiently described to make known its contents or the substance thereof, there is a well-recognized exception in the pleading of printed or written matter which is alleged to be too obscene or indecent to be spread upon the records of the court. It is well settled that such matter may be identified by a reference sufficient to advise the accused of the letter or document intended without setting forth its contents. United States v. Bennett, 16 Blatchf. 338, Fed. Cas. No. 14,571; Rosen v. United States, 161 U. S. 29, 40 L. ed. 606, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 434, 480, 10 Am. Crim. Rep. 251.

The cases were fully reviewed by Mr. Justice Harlan, speaking for the court, in the Rosen Case, and after stating the right of the accused to be advised of the nature and cause of the accusation against him with such...