Opinion ID: 1498211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The court erred in overruling appellants' motion for a bill of particulars.

Text: The appellants complain that information was vague, indefinite and uncertain, and that they were not informed of the names of the persons from whom the ration points were acquired, the method of payments, etc. It is clear that the appellants are, in reality, objecting that the information did not set forth evidentiary matters. It is hornbook law, however, that neither an indictment nor an information need descend to such minutiæ. Apposite to this contention of the appellants is the language used in Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77, 82, 47 S.Ct. 300, 302, 71 L.Ed. 545: 3. The defendant also made a motion, supported by affidavit, for a detailed bill of particulars, setting forth with particularity the specific facts in reference to the several overt acts alleged in the indictment, with various specifications as to times, places, names of persons, quantities, prices, containers, buildings, agencies, instrumentalities, etc., and the manner in which and the specific circumstances under which they were committed. This motion  which in effect sought a complete discovery of the Government's case in reference to the overt acts  was denied on the ground that the indictment was sufficiently definite in view of the unknown matters involved and the motion called for `too much details of evidence.' The application for the bill of particulars was one addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and there being no abuse of this discretion, its action thereon should not be disturbed. [Many cases cited.] Maxfield v. United States, 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 593, 596, certiorari denied, 327 U.S. 794, 66 S.Ct. 821, 90 L.Ed. 1021; see also Zito v. United States, 7 Cir., 64 F.2d 772, 773; Paschen v. United States, 7 Cir., 70 F.2d 491, 493, 494; Pines v. United States, supra, 8 Cir., 123 F.2d at pages 827, 828; Rose v. United States, 10 Cir., 128 F.2d 622, 624, certiorari denied, 317 U.S. 651, 63 S.Ct. 47, 87 L.Ed. 524; United States v. Association of American Railroads, D.C.Neb., 4 F.R.D. 510, 528.