Miller v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 January 1905 |
| Docket Number | 1,109. |
| Citation | 136 F. 581 |
| Parties | MILLER et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
The plaintiffs in error were on April 14, 1904, convicted of violating section 4746 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of July 7, 1898, c. 578, 30 Stat. 718 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 3279). The section reads as follows: 'That every person who knowingly or wilfully makes or aids or assists in making, or in any wise procures the making or presentation of any false or fraudulent affidavit, declaration, certificate voucher, or paper or writing purporting to be such concerning any claim for pension or payment thereof or pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Pensions * * * shall be punished,' etc. The charge in each of the four counts of the indictment is that 'defendants did knowingly and willfully procure the presentation to the Commissioner of Pensions of a certain false and fraudulent paper writing' etc. The indictment fails to name any person through whom the presentation was made, or to account for the omission of the name, and fails to state in what manner the defendant procured the presentation. Demurrers to the indictment for insufficiency were overruled, and after trial and conviction a motion in arrest of judgment was overruled, to which several rulings proper exceptions were reserved. After judgment and sentence upon the verdict, the cause is brought here for review.
Thomas E. Milchrist, for plaintiff in error.
S. H Bethea, U.S. Dist. Atty.
Before JENKINS, GROSSCUP, and BAKER, Circuit Judges.
Where the offense is purely statutory, it is usually sufficient that the indictment charges acts coming within the statutory description and in the substantial words of the statute without further expansion. United States v. Simmons, 96 U.S. 360, 24 L.Ed. 819; United States v. Britton, 107 U.S. 655, 2 Sup.Ct. 512, 27 L.Ed. 520; Pounds v United States, 171 U.S. 35, 18 Sup.Ct. 729, 43 L.Ed. 62. But this rule is subject to the qualification that the crime must be charged with precision and certainty, and every ingredient of which it is composed must be clearly and accurately set forth, and that even in the case of misdemeanors the indictment must be free from ambiguity, and leave no doubt in the mind of the accused or of the court of the exact offense intended to be charged. United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 26 L.Ed. 1135; United States v. Hess, 124 U.S. 483, 8 Sup.Ct. 571, 31 L.Ed. 516; Pettibone v. United States, 148 U.S. 197, 13 Sup.Ct. 542, 37 L.Ed. 419; Blitz v. United States, 153 U.S. 308, 315, 14 Sup.Ct. 924, 38 L.Ed. 725; Evans v. United States, 153 U.S. 584, 587, 14 Sup.Ct. 934, 38 L.Ed. 830; Ledbetter v. United States, 170 U.S. 606, 609, 18 Sup.Ct. 774, 42 L.Ed. 1162. Within this rule and its qualifications, we are of opinion that the indictment here, couched in the language of the statute is insufficient. It is charged that the defendants did knowingly and willfully procure the presentation to the Commissioner of Pensions of a certain false and fraudulent affidavit, etc., but wholly omits to name the person procured, or to state that his name was unknown to the grand jury, or in any way to account for the failure to name him or to state how the presentation was procured. It is to be observed that the statutory offense consists in in any wise procuring to be presented to the officer named a false affidavit-- which means that the accused procured the false affidavit to be presented. It is not charged that the defendant personally made the presentation. It may be doubtful whether personal presentation of a false affidavit to the commissioner falls within the statute. The language is peculiar. 'Every person who knowingly or wilfully makes, or aids or assists in making, or in any wise procures the making or presentation of any false or fraudulent affidavit,' etc. The making of a false affidavit is one offense; the aiding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Anderson
...an indictment for failure to name a principal. See also Morgan v. United States, 159 F.2d 85 (10th Cir. 1947); Miller v. United States, 136 F. 581 (7th Cir. 1905). The second line of cases holds that an indictment which tracks the language of the statute is insufficient unless the statute a......
-
Capone v. United States
...reports with intent to interfere with military and naval operations, and the reports were not described or set forth. In Miller v. United States (C. C. A.) 136 F. 581, defendant was charged with knowingly and willfully procuring the presentation to the Commissioner of Pensions of a false an......
-
United States v. Sanders, Cr. No. 8032.
...to defendant's contention that the Government should have alleged whom defendant caused to make and present the statement. Miller v. United States, 7 Cir., 136 F. 581; United States v. Simmons, 96 U.S. 360, 24 L.Ed. 819. Upon argument of the demurrer, however, the Government stated that it ......
-
Rosenfeld v. United States
...from a certain distillery to a place other than a distillery warehouse, with intent to defraud the United States. In Miller v. United States, 136 F. 581, 69 C.C.A. 355, this court adopted the rule above quoted, but held that did not apply to the facts of the case before it, since the defend......