Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Stephen Robert Hughes v. United States of America, George P. Stack v. United States
Stephen Robert Hughes v. United States, George P. Stack v. United States, 340 F.2d 609 (1st Cir. 1965)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1965-01-20
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM. By a petition for rehearing the government calls our attention to the statement in Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, at 276, 72 S.Ct. 240, at 256, 96 L.Ed. 288, where the court said, “Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter,” and claims this to be support for its contention that the proof in the present case cured the deficiency in the indictment. The government overlooks the fact that the Morissette indictment had charged the defendant with “unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly * * *.” It would have been more appropriate to note footnote 30, 342 U.S. at 270, 72 S.Ct. at 253, to the effect that it is insufficient to charge simply in the language of the statute if “the statute itself failed to set forth expressly, fully, and clearly all elements necessary to constitute the offense,” citing United States v. Carll, 1881, 105 U.S. 611, 26 L.Ed. 1135.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Stephen Robert Hughes v. United States of America, George P. Stack v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 2 opinions
HUGHES v. UNITED STATES,340 F.2d 609(1st Cir. 1965)
Stephen Robert HUGHES, Defendant, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America,
Appellee. George P. STACK, Defendant, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of
America, Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
January 20, 1965.
Page 610
Daniel Klubock, Boston, Mass., with whom Paul T. Smith and Manuel Katz, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for Stephen Robert Hughes, appellant.
John F. Zamparelli, Medford, Mass., for George P. Stack, appellant.
A. David Mazzone, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U.S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
By a petition for rehearing the government calls our attention to the statement in Morissette v. United States,342 U.S. 246, at 276,72 S.Ct. 240, at 256,96 L.Ed. 288, where the court said, "Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter," and claims this to be support for its contention that the proof in the present case cured the deficiency in the indictment. The government overlooks the fact that the Morissette indictment had charged the defendant with "unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly * * *." It would have been more appropriate to note footnote 30,342 U.S. at 270,72 S.Ct. at 253, to the effect that it is insufficient to charge simply in the language of the statute if "the statute itself failed to set forth expressly, fully, and clearly all elements necessary to constitute the offense," citing United States v. Carll, 1881,105 U.S. 611,26 L.Ed. 1135. Carll is almost exactly the case at bar, holding the word "feloniously" not the equivalent of "knowingly." "Unlawfully" is no better. Nor is this a case where the defendant first complained about the indictment after judgment, as in United States v. Williams, 5 Cir., 1953,202 F.2d 712, opinion on rehearing203 F.2d 572, cert. den.346 U.S. 822,74 S.Ct. 37,98 L.Ed. 347.
An order will be entered denying the petition for rehearing.Page 673