United States v. Carll

Citation26 L. Ed. 1135,105 U.S 611,15 Otto 611
CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Decision Date24 April 1882
Parties<P><B><CENTER> UNITED STATES</CENTER></B></P> <P><B><CENTER>V.</CENTER></B></P> <P><B><CENTER>CARLL</CENTER></B></P>
105 U.S. 611

15 Otto 611

26 L.Ed. 1135

UNITED STATES

V.

CARLL

Supreme Court of the United States.

October Term 1881

CERTIFICATE of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

This was an indictment, found in the Circuit Court, on sect. 5431 of the Revised Statutes, by which it is enacted that 'every person who, with intent to defraud, passes, utters publishes, or sells any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment at hard labor not more than fifteen years.'

Each count of the indictment alleged that the defendant, at a certain time and place, 'feloniously, and with intent to defraud the Bank of the Metropolis, which said bank is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, did pass, utter, and publish upon and to the said Bank of the Metropolis a falsely made, forged, counterfeited, and altered obligation and security of the United States' (which was set forth according to its tenor), against the peace, and contrary to the form of the statute.

The defendant, having been tried before Judge Benedict, and convicted by the jury under instructions which required them to be satisfied of the facts alleged, and that the defendant, at the time of uttering the obligations, knew them to be false, forged, counterfeited, and altered, moved in arrest of judgment for the insufficiency of the indictment. At the hearing of this motion before Judge Blatchford and Judge Benedict, they were divided in opinion upon the question, stated in various forms in their certificate, but in substance this: Whether the indictment, setting forth the offence in the language of the statute, without further alleging that the defendant knew the instruments to be false, forged, counterfeited, and altered, was sufficient, after verdict, to warrant judgment thereon.

The Solicitor-General for the United States.

Mr. William C. Roberts for the defendant.

Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

In an indictment upon a statute, it is not sufficient to set forth the offence in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished; and the fact that the statute...

To continue reading

Request your trial
319 cases
  • United States v. Walker, Crim. A. No. 80-486.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • 7 Mayo 1981
    ... ... United States, 445 U.S. 684, 713, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 1442, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 612, 26 L.Ed. 1135 (1882)), this Court will examine the question of whether Congress intended to adopt the common law merger rule despite the absence of any reflection of that rule in the language of the statute itself ...         After a rather unusual historical ... ...
  • Wagers v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 1 Febrero 2013
    ... ... Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution, Respondent. Case No. 3:13-cv-031 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON February 1, 2013 ... Carll (1882), 105 U.S. 611, 612, 26 L. Ed. 1135. [*P12] Appellant relies upon Valentine v. Konteh ... ...
  • U.S. v. Stierhoff
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • 3 Agosto 2007
    ... 500 F.Supp.2d 55 ... UNITED STATES of America ... Neil STIERHOFF, Defendant ... CR No. 06-042-ML ... United States ... at 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887 (quoting United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 612, 15 Otto 611, 26 L.Ed. 1135 (1882)); see United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d ... ...
  • Jelke v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 2 Marzo 1918
    ... ... U.S. 29, 16 Sup.Ct. 434, 480, 40 L.Ed. 606; Pettibone v ... United States, 148 U.S. 198, 13 Sup.Ct. 542, 37 L.Ed ... 419; Perrin v. United States, 169 F. 17, 94 C.C.A ... 385; Dunbar v. United States, 156 U.S. 195, 15 ... Sup.Ct. 325, 39 L.Ed. 390; 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; United States ... v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588; United ... States v. Munday (C.C.) 186 F. 375; United States v ... Munday, 222 U.S. 175, 32 Sup.Ct. 53, 56 L.Ed. 149 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT