Opinion ID: 431676
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of the Citation

Text: 17 Next, we address Rojo's contention that the citation failed to adequately advise him of the pending charges. The sixth amendment of the United States Constitution provides in relevant part: [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Charging documents are tested by whether they  'sufficiently apprise[ ] the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.'  Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962) (citations omitted). The requirement that a charging document must furnish a defendant with a sufficient description of the charge against him has long been recognized to serve a dual function, namely (1) to enable the defendant to adequately prepare his defense and (2) to enable him to plead double jeopardy against a second prosecution. United States v. Buckley, 689 F.2d 893, 896 n. 3 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1778, 76 L.Ed.2d 349 (1983). 18 The citation in the case at bar fails to provide sufficient notice of the elements and facts of the pending charges. The government does not dispute that the copy of the citation issued to Rojo contains only the words Title 18, Section 641. There is not even a cursory reference to any act allegedly committed or to any other facts, such as date, time or location. See, e.g., United States v. Christopher, 700 F.2d 1253, 1257 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2436, 77 L.Ed.2d 1321 (1983); United States v. Groff, 643 F.2d 396, 402 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 828, 102 S.Ct. 121, 70 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981). Furthermore, it is noteworthy that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 641 sets out several possible violations. The citation did not inform Rojo which of these violations he allegedly committed and he should not have to speculate in this regard. United States v. Rohrer, 708 F.2d 429, 435 n. 7 (9th Cir.1983). 19 In view of the above factors, the court rejects the government's argument that Rojo knew the nature and cause of the accusation, because he could look up 18 U.S.C. Sec. 641. 3 We hold, therefore, that the citation was constitutionally defective. 20 For all of the foregoing reasons, appellant's judgment of conviction is VACATED.