Opinion ID: 184817
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of the Conjunctive in the Indictment

Text: Joseph claims error in the fact that the indictment used theconjunctive (used and carried) while the statute uses thedisjunctive (uses or carries). This is not an error: __________ 5 In this section we do not distinguish between arguments raisedby Joseph himself in his pro se briefs and by the federal publicdefender on Joseph's behalf. The appellant contends that ... where legislative definition of a crime sets forth disjunctively a number of acts, the commission of any one of which will be a violation of the statute, the prosecution may in a single count of an indictment or information charge several or all of such acts in the conjunctive and under such charge make proof of any one or more of the acts, proof of one alone, however, being sufficient to support a conviction. This is correct.... District of Columbia v. Hunt, 163 F.2d 833, 837-38 (D.C. Cir.1947) (citing Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625 (1896)). This rule applies to s 924(c)(1) indictments drafted in theconjunctive, which can support a conviction if the jury ischarged and the violation is proved disjunctively. See UnitedStates v. Dickey, 102 F.3d 157, 164 n.8 (5th Cir. 1996). Usingthe conjunctive in the indictment protects the defendant'sright to be informed of the charge(s) he faces: Frequently a statute will specify various ways in which a particular crime may be committed. It is enough to allege one of these ways without negativing the others. Or the pleading may allege commission of the offense by all the acts mentioned if it uses the conjunctive and where the statute uses the disjunctive or. But if the indictment or information alleges the several acts in the disjunctive it fails to inform the defendant which of the acts he is charged with having committed, and it is insufficient. 1 Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedures 125, at 563-65 (1999) (footnotes omitted).