Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/271/201/case.html
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 15:15:16
Document Index: 520510250

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1046', '§ 1044', '§ 125', '§ 125', '§ 125', '§ 1044', '§ 125']

UNITED STATES V. NOVECK, 271 U. S. 201 - Volume 271 - 1926 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 271 > UNITED STATES V. NOVECK, 271 U. S. 201 (1926) > Full Text
UNITED STATES V. NOVECK, 271 U. S. 201 (1926)
United States v. Noveck, 271 U.S. 201 (1926)
United States v. Noveck
271 U.S. 201
Error to a judgment of the district court quashing a count charging perjury upon the ground that prosecution was barred by statute of limitations.
Page 271 U. S. 202
"No person shall be prosecuted, . . . for any offense, not capital, except as provided in § 1046, unless the indictment is found, . . . within three years next after such offense shall have been committed: Provided, however, that in offenses involving the defrauding or attempts to defraud the United States . . . , the period
Page 271 U. S. 203
of limitation shall be six years."
Plaintiff in error contends that, as the perjury in this case is charged to have been committed in the making of an income tax return, and is specially alleged to have been committed for the purpose of defrauding the United States, the offense is brought within the proviso to § 1044, and that the six-year period of limitation applies. But the alleged purpose to defraud the United States is not an element of the crime defined in § 125, on which the indictment is based. That allegation does not affect the charge; it need not be proved, and may be rejected as mere surplusage. In re Lane, 135 U. S. 443, 135 U. S. 448. The construction of §§ 125 and 1044 contended for by the government divides perjury into two classes. It makes one include offenses having the elements specified in § 125 and the other to include those containing the further element of purpose to defraud the United States. And that would apply similarly to every offense to which the three-year period fixed by § 1044 was applicable before the proviso was added. The effect is to create offenses separate and distinct from those defined by specific enactments. Obviously that was not intended. The Act of
Page 271 U. S. 204
November 17, 1921, merely added a proviso to a statute of limitations. Statutes will not be read to create crimes, or new degrees or classes of crime, unless the purpose so to do is plain. The language in question does not require the construction contended for. Indeed, it is not all appropriate for the making of such classifications or the creation of offenses. Its purpose is to apply the six-year period to every case in which defrauding or an attempt to defraud the United States is an ingredient under the statute defining the offense. There are several such offenses. Section 37 affords an illustration. But perjury as defined by § 125 does not contain any such element.
Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: UNITED STATES V. NOVECK, 271 U. S. 201 (1926)