United States v. Carll
Cases that cite this one
390 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- People v. Barker (Ill. 1980)
- Sutton v. United States (5th Cir. 1946)
- Neufield v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1941)
- Myers v. United States (8th Cir. 1926)
- Morris v. United States (8th Cir. 1908)
- United States v. Danielle Lenise Brown (11th Cir. 2014)
- United States v. Richard Foley, Jr. (2d Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Lamont (District Court, S.D. New York 1955)
- United States v. Green (District Court, N.D. New York 1905)
- Evans v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1894)
- United States v. Marion C. Denmon, Jr. (8th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Rodriguez (District Court, District of Columbia 2022)
- United States v. Resendiz-Ponce (Supreme Court of the United States 2007)
- State v. Gonzalez-Lopez (Wash. Ct. App. 2006)
- United States v. Berrios-Centeno (5th Cir. 2001)
- United States v. Edwards (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 2000)
- United States v. Stone (11th Cir. 1998)
- United States v. Charles Bruce Nabors and Craig Scott Keltner (8th Cir. 1995)
- State v. Tower (Mont. 1994)
- United States v. Mavroules (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1993)
- State v. Kjorsvik (Wash. 1991)
- Cash v. State (Ind. 1990)
- United States v. J. Murray Hooker, II (4th Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Ernest Dixon (7th Cir. 1979)
- United States v. Robert Keith (9th Cir. 1979)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
after stating the ease, 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 in question, read in the light of the common law, and of other statutes on the like matter, enables the court *613 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. v
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 Jiim 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.