United States v. Gammill, 536-69.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 536-69.,536-69. |
| Citation | 421 F.2d 185 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent M. GAMMILL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
James R. Richards, Asst. U. S. Atty. (James L. Treece, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Francis S. Mancini, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Before BREITENSTEIN and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.
The defendant-appellant was indicted, convicted, and sentenced for a narcotic violation. On this appeal he challenges the sufficiency of the indictment and the power of the district court to amend.
The indictment returned by the grand jury read in pertinent part:
"That on or about the 9th day of November, within the District of Colorado, VINCENT M. GAMMILL, JR., knowingly and wilfully did sell * * * a quantity of narcotic drugs, * * * in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 4705(a)."
After the jury was impaneled, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the indictment failed to charge an offense in that it omitted the year in which the alleged sale occurred. The court took the motion under advisement and proceeded with the trial. At the close of its case the government moved to amend the indictment to conform to the proof that the offense occurred on November 9, 1968. Over the objection of the defendant, the court made the amendment by interlineation. The motion for acquittal was renewed at the close of all evidence and was denied.
In Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 770, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed. 2d 240, the Supreme Court said that an indictment may not be amended except by resubmission to the grand jury, unless the change is merely a matter of form. A defective allegation of time is a matter of form if time is not an essential element of the offense and if the indictment charges facts showing that the offense was committed within the period of the statute of limitations. Butler v. United States, 10 Cir., 197 F.2d 561, 562, and Weatherby v. United States, 10 Cir., 150 F.2d 465, 467. This is not a case where the defect is an incorrect date within the limitation period. Cf. United States v. Arge, 10 Cir., 418 F.2d 721. Here the omission of the year prevents the indictment from charging an offense within the statute of limitations. The defect was not one of form and the district court was without power to make the amendment. See Stewart v. United States, 8 Cir....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Janoe
...counterfeit bills); United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019, 1021 (6th Cir.1970) (change in citation of statute); United States v. Gammill, 421 F.2d 185 (10th Cir.1970) (change in date of offense). See also United States v. Pazsint, 703 F.2d 420, 423 (9th Cir.1983) ("Simply correcting an ......
-
United States v. Anzelmo
...indictment and within the statutory period of limitations, a defect in the allegation of time is one of form only. United States v. Gammill, 421 F.2d 185 (10th Cir. 1970); United States v. Arge, 418 F.2d 721 (10th Cir. 1969); Stewart v. United States, 395 F.2d 484 (8th Cir. 1968); Jacobs v.......
-
U.S. v. Titterington
...for pleading crimes, it is hard to understand why this statutory defense should do so. The Tenth Circuit's decision in United States v. Gammill, 421 F.2d 185 (1970), does not suggest otherwise. There, the court held that a district court lacked authority to amend an indictment that omitted ......
-
U.S. v. Balano
...offense must have been completed. No greater showing of proper ordering was necessary. Balano incorrectly relies on United States v. Gammill, 421 F.2d 185 (10th Cir. 1970), in which the year of the offense was omitted from the indictment. The indictment therefore did not charge criminal con......
-
Amending Indictments in Colorado: Rule 6.8, Colo. R. Crim. P
...473 (1961). 26. Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 7 S.Ct. 781, 30 L.Ed. 849 (1887). 27. Annot., supra,§ 3 at 1196; see United States v. Gammill, 421 F.2d 185 (10th Cir. 1970). 28. Annot., supra,§ 12. 29. Article II, Section 8 of the Colorado Constitution guarantees grand jury indictment, but only ......