Opinion ID: 479235
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: claimed failure to particularize similar counts

Text: 87 Counts 1 through 8 charged knowing possession of a firearm not registered to defendant. The language of each count was identical except for the date, which was September 1, 1978 in Counts 1, 2 and 3; September 2 in Count 4; September 3 in Counts 5 and 6; September 5 in Count 7; and September 6 in Count 8. 88 Counts 9 through 16 formed a similar series, charging knowing manufacture. 89 There is no claim that any one of these counts, taken alone, failed to charge an offense. The argument is that because there is no differentiation of any firearm from another, and no particularization of any offense except by date as to some, every count is somehow defective. 90 A sufficient answer is that this proposition was not raised prior to trial as required by Rule 12(b)(2), FED.R.CRIM.P., and was thus waived, Rule 12(f).