Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03321/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03321-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Trent L. Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3321

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Trent L. Williams, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 14, 2005

Filed: April 25, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Government charged Trent L. Williams with possession of counterfeit

money. At the end of Williams’s trial, the district court*

 instructed the jury that to

convict Williams, it had to find he acted with intent to defraud. After the jury found

Williams guilty, Williams filed a motion to arrest judgment based on the indictment’s

failure to allege an essential element of the offense–intent to defraud. Rather than

using the phrase “intent to defraud,” the indictment stated Williams “did knowingly

have in his possession and custody, with intent to sell or otherwise use, counterfeit

Appellate Case: 04-3321 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2005 Entry ID: 1895012
-2-

obligations of the United States.” The district court denied Williams’s motion,

concluding the indictment’s language conveyed the concept that Williams intended

to defraud or cheat someone by selling or using the counterfeit bills. 

 On appeal, Williams contends the district court should have arrested the

judgment because the indictment failed to allege he acted with intent to defraud.

Because Williams did not challenge the indictment’s sufficiency before jeopardy

attached, we liberally construe the indictment in favor of sufficiency and uphold the

indictment “‘unless it is so defective that by no reasonable construction can it be said

to charge the offense.’” United States v. White, 241 F.3d 1015, 1021 (8th Cir. 2001)

(quoting United States v. Pennington, 168 F.3d 1060, 1064-65 (8th Cir. 1999)). An

indictment is sufficient “‘if it fairly informs the accused of the charges against him

and allows him to plead double jeopardy as a bar to a future prosecution.’” Id.

(quoting United States v. Mallen, 843 F.2d 1096, 1102 (8th Cir. 1988)). A particular

word or phrase need not be used if we can recognize a valid offense and the allegation

substantially states the offense’s elements. Id. An indictment is insufficient only if

the substance of an essential element is omitted. Id. Although the issue is close, we

conclude the substance of the element of intent to defraud was conveyed by the

language stating Williams knowingly possessed with intent to “sell or otherwise use”

the bogus money. To do so, Williams would necessarily knowingly defraud any

unwitting recipient of the fake bills. 

For the first time on appeal, Williams alleges the indictment is also insufficient

because it cites 18 U.S.C. § 471, the statute prohibiting the making of counterfeit

currency, instead of § 472, the statute prohibiting the possession of counterfeit

currency. An error in, or the omission of, a statute’s citation in the body of an

indictment is not grounds for a conviction’s reversal unless the error or omission

misleads the defendant to his prejudice. United States v. Haley, 478 F.2d 766, 768

(8th Cir. 1973). Williams does not even try to show he was misled or prejudiced

because of the erroneous citation. The indictment’s caption reads “Possession of

Appellate Case: 04-3321 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2005 Entry ID: 1895012
-3-

Falsely Made Federal Reserve Notes,” and the body of the indictment alleges

Williams “knowingly had in his possession and custody” counterfeit currency, a

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472, not § 471. Further, the verdict-directing instruction

included all of the elements of an offense under § 472. 

Because the indictment can be reasonably construed to charge the offense of

possession of counterfeit money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472, the district court

properly denied Williams’s challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment, and we

affirm Williams’s conviction. We are disturbed that the indictment’s citation of the

wrong statute found its way into the final judgment, however. We thus remand for

entry of an amended judgment correcting this error.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3321 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/25/2005 Entry ID: 1895012