Opinion ID: 501760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenging an Indictment for the First Time on Appeal

Text: 42 Zavala presents his objections to the indictment for the first time on appeal. In United States v. Pheaster, 544 F.2d 353 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1099, 97 S.Ct. 1118, 51 L.Ed.2d 546 (1977), we stated that a defendant never waives his right to challenge an indictment. We explained, nonetheless, that indictments which are tardily challenged are liberally construed in favor of validity. Pheaster, 544 F.2d at 361. See also Carlson v. United States, 296 F.2d 909, 910 (9th Cir.1961). More specifically, the Supreme Court has stated that courts should uphold indictments not challenged before the verdict if the necessary facts appear in any form, or by fair construction can be found within the terms of the indictment. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. at 433, 52 S.Ct. at 420 (1932). We must therefore disregard errors of phrasing. But the indictment must be substantively sufficient. Liberality in testing the sufficiency of an indictment, we said in Carlson v. United States, applies to matters of form and not of substance. 296 F.2d at 912. In United States v. Cluchette we specified further: The true test is whether the indictment contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet. 465 F.2d 749, 753 (9th Cir.1972) (citing United States v. Mitman, 459 F.2d 451 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 863, 93 S.Ct. 154, 34 L.Ed.2d 111 (1972)). 43 Thus, when a defendant complains about the sufficiency of the indictment only after the verdict, we take a liberal view of the indictment. We read it less strictly, using a more relaxed standard than we would if the defendant had raised a timely objection. We examine the counts individually and, as long as they can each reasonably be construed as containing the essential element[s] we uphold the indictment, even if it is loosely and inartificially drawn. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. at 433, 52 S.Ct. at 420. See, e.g., United States v. Pheaster, 544 F.2d at 359-63. But we still make certain that each count informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and ... enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. at 117, 94 S.Ct. at 2907.