Robertson v. United States
Decision Date | 04 June 1948 |
Docket Number | No. 12266.,12266. |
Citation | 168 F.2d 294 |
Parties | ROBERTSON v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Mahlon L. Walters, of Jefferson, Tex., for appellant.
Steve M. King, U. S. Atty., and James T. Wright, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Beaumont, Tex., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
The appellant was tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment upon an indictment charging that he transported in interstate commerce a certain automobile knowing the same to have been stolen. A motion was duly made to dismiss the indictment because it failed to allege that the vehicle was in fact a stolen car. The court below overruled the motion.
The indictment is in the language of the statute,1 which ordinarily is sufficient; but where the statute itself omits an essential element of the offense or includes it only by implication, the indictment nevertheless should allege it directly and with certainty. As has been well said, legislation may proceed by implication but good pleading may not.
In the instant case the statute makes it a crime to transport in interstate commerce a motor vehicle "knowing the same to have been stolen". While not expressly requiring it, the implication is irresistible that the vehicle must have been stolen. Therefore, the statute implies an essential ingredient of the offense that must be proven; and since it must be proven, good pleading requires that it should be alleged. This is probably the reason that the Supreme Court promulgated form No. 6 as an appendix to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. following section 687.2
2 "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | v. > No JOHN DOE | (18 U.S.C.A. § 408)
The Grand jury charges:
On or about the ...... day of ........., 19....., John Doe transported a stolen motor vehicle from ..........., State of .............., to ..............., State of .............., in ............. District of ..............., and he then knew the motor...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Meyer
...only indirectly or impliedly in the clauses which begin "without disclosing that" (United States v. Williams, supra; Robertson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 294; United States v. Lamont, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1955, 18 F.R.D. 27, 30, affirmed 2 Cir., 1956, 236 F.2d 312; 4 Barron's Federal ......
-
United States v. Melekh, 60 Cr. 529.
...themselves made public, as well as information which the services themselves never thought it necessary to withhold. Robertson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 294, is cited for its holding that where a statute implies an essential ingredient of the offense, it must be alleged. And ......
-
United States v. Guterma
...of course, where the statute itself omits an essential element of the offense or includes it only by implication. See Robertson v. United States, 5 Cir., 168 F.2d 294, 295. In United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 26 L.Ed. 1135, for example, an indictment alleging in the words of the statut......
-
Downing v. United States
...545 (1927); Babb v. United States (5 Cir. 1955) 218 F.2d 538; Johnson v. United States (5 Cir. 1953) 207 F.2d 314; Robertson v. United States (5 Cir. 1948) 168 F.2d 294; Norris v. United States (5 Cir. 1946) 152 F.2d 808, cert. denied, 328 U.S. 850, 66 S.Ct. 1118, 90 L.Ed. The motion to req......