From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Carll

U.S.
Jan 1, 1881
105 U.S. 611 (1881)

Summary

holding the omission of a necessary element of an offense is a "matter of substance, and not a defector imperfection in matter of form only"

Summary of this case from United States v. Ortiz

Opinion

OCTOBER TERM, 1881.

An indictment on sect. 5431 of the Revised Statutes, alleging, in the words of the statute, that the defendant feloniously, and with intent to defraud, did pass, utter, and publish a falsely made, forged, counterfeited, and altered obligation of the United States, but not further alleging that the defendant knew it to be false, forged, counterfeited, and altered, is insufficient, even after verdict.

The Solicitor-General for the United States.

Mr. William C. Roberts for the defendant.


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.


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 in question, read in the light of the common law, and of other statutes on the like matter, enables the court to infer the intent of the legislature, does not dispense with the necessity of alleging in the indictment all the facts necessary to bring the case within that intent. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542; United States v. Simmons, 96 id. 360; Commonwealth v. Clifford, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 215; Commonwealth v. Bean, 11 id. 414; Commonwealth v. Bean, 14 Gray (Mass.), 52; Commonwealth v. Filburn, 119 Mass. 297.

The language of the statute on which this indictment is founded includes the case of every person who, with intent to defraud, utters any forged obligation of the United States. But the offence at which it is aimed is similar to the common-law offence of uttering a forged or counterfeit bill. In this case, as in that, knowledge that the instrument is forged and counterfeited is essential to make out the crime; and an uttering, with intent to defraud, of an instrument in fact counterfeit, but supposed by the defendant to be genuine, though within the words of the statute, would not be within its meaning and object.

This indictment, by omitting the allegation contained in the indictment in United States v. Howell (11 Wall. 432), and in all approved precedents, that the defendant knew the instrument which he uttered to be false, forged, and counterfeit, fails to charge him with any crime. The omission is of matter of substance, and not a "defect or imperfection in matter of form only," within the meaning of sect. 1025 of the Revised Statutes. By the settled rules of criminal pleading, and the authorities above cited, therefore, the question of the sufficiency of the indictment must be

Answered in the negative.


Summaries of

United States v. Carll

U.S.
Jan 1, 1881
105 U.S. 611 (1881)

holding the omission of a necessary element of an offense is a "matter of substance, and not a defector imperfection in matter of form only"

Summary of this case from United States v. Ortiz

holding an indictment insufficient

Summary of this case from State v. Ibsen

finding that "it is not sufficient to set forth the offen[s]e 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 offen[s]e intended to be punished"

Summary of this case from United States v. Hillie

finding an indictment defective when it "omitt[ed] the allegation . . . that the defendant knew the instrument which he uttered to be false" when this was a necessary element of the crime

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Groos

overturning a conviction based on the insufficiency of the indictment

Summary of this case from Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

stating that the indictment must allege "all the facts necessary to bring the case within that intent"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Berrios-Centeno

In Carll, the indictment charged uttering a forged obligation of the United States, those terms being the terms of the statute.

Summary of this case from United States v. Dixon

In United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881), the indictment tracked the statute, but the statute did not mention the essential element that the defendant know the uttered instrument was forged and counterfeited; thus, the indictment did not mention this element, either.

Summary of this case from United States v. Wright

In Carll, the Supreme Court stated that "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."

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Wheeler

In United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 613, 26 L.Ed. 1135 (1881), the indictment failed to allege that defendant "knowingly" engaged in the alleged misconduct.

Summary of this case from United States v. Murray

In United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 26 L.Ed. 1135, for example, an indictment alleging in the words of the statute that the defendant, feloniously and with intent to defraud, did pass, utter and publish a falsely made, forged, counterfeited and altered obligation of the United States, but not further alleging that the defendant knew it to be false, forged and counterfeited, was insufficient.

Summary of this case from United States v. Guterma

noting that the indictment should "set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished"

Summary of this case from Insko v. State

In United States v. Carll (1882), 105 U.S. 611, 26 L.Ed. 1135, the court ruled that an indictment for forgery failed to charge the defendant with any crime when it did not allege that the defendant knew the instruments in question to be false, forged, counterfeited, and altered. "The omission is a matter of substance, and not a `defect or imperfection in matter of form only,' * * *."

Summary of this case from People v. Barker
Case details for

United States v. Carll

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES v . CARLL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 1, 1881

Citations

105 U.S. 611 (1881)

Citing Cases

United States v. Lamont

Another reason, and one sometimes overlooked, is to enable the court to decide whether the facts alleged are…

Evans v. United States

This case involves the sufficiency of an indictment for the wilful misapplication of the funds of a national…