United States v. Smith, Cr. 12280.
| Decision Date | 16 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 12280. |
| Citation | 107 F. Supp. 839 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SMITH. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Arthur A. Maguire, U. S. Atty., Scranton, Pa., Charles W. Kalp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lewisburg, Pa., for plaintiff.
Richard H. Warren, Scranton, Pa., for defendant.
This is a motion by defendant to dismiss a criminal information. Count One of the information charges the defendant with having forged an endorsement on an United States treasury check with intent to defraud the United States in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 471; Count Two charges utterance of the check with the forged endorsement in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 472.
Defendant contends that both of these sections have to do with the forgery of governmental obligations and not endorsements thereon, and that the crime, if any, committed by the defendant was a forgery of a writing under Title 18 U.S.C. § 495. The government concedes that the defendant is correct and requests the Court for permission to amend the information.
An information, being the official act filed under the oath or certificate of the United States Attorney, is differentiated from an indictment in that an indictment is returned under oath by the Grand Jury and it may only be superseded by an indictment of equal solemnity. An information, not being founded on the oath of a Grand Jury, may be amended in either form or substance. Armstrong v. United States of America, 9 Cir., 1926, 16 F.2d 62; Bigrow v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa.1947, 70 F.Supp. 826.
Since the information clearly informs the defendant that he is being charged with having falsely forged an endorsement on an United States treasury check and uttered the same, an amendment of the information to charge defendant with having violated Title 18 U.S.C. § 495 will not prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Blanchard, 73-1379
...in emphasis). Unlike an indictment, an information may generally be amended at any time prior to verdict. See, e. g., United States v. Smith, 107 F.Supp. 839 (M.D.Pa.1952); Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(e). However, no amendment of the information will be permitted if the substantial rights of the defend......
-
United States v. Williams
...accused agrees that the facts stipulated should have the same effect as if set out in the indictment itself. See also United States v. Smith, 107 F.Supp. 839 (M.D.Pa.1952), and Crosby v. United States, As to the second issue, Palumbo we think is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.......
-
State v. Cardwell
...to criminal informations. It has long been held that an information can be amended both as to form and substance. United States v. Smith (D.C.Pa.1952), 107 F.Supp. 839. On amendment of an information, however, certain procedural safeguards must be imposed. The above discussion indicates ame......
-
State v. Coffield
...A. C. Transport v. United States, 10 Cir., 203 F.2d 878, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 997, 73 S.Ct. 1139, 97 L.Ed. 1403; United States v. Smith, D.C.Pa., 107 F.Supp. 839; United States v. Seagraves, D.C.Guam, 100 F.Supp. 424; Frederick v. United States, 9 Cir., 163 F.2d 536. None of the decid......