Document: 127 S. Ct. 782 (2007) 549 U.S. 102 UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. RESENDIZ-PONCE. No. 05-998. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 10, 2006. Decided January 9, 2007. *785 Michael R. Dreeben, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Atmore L. Baggot, Apache Junction, Arizona, appointed by this Court, respondent. Jeffrey T. Green, Devon A. Corneal, Sidley Austin LLP, Counsel Record, AZ, Steven F. Hubachek, Federal Defenders San Diego, Inc., CA, Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General, Department Justice, D.C., CJA Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney Kannon K. Shanmugam, to the Nina Goodman, Attorney, Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. A jury convicted respondent Juan Resendiz-Ponce, a Mexican citizen, illegally attempting reenter Because indictment failed allege specific overt act that he committed in seeking reentry, Appeals set aside his conviction and remanded dismissal indictment. We granted Government's petition certiorari answer question whether omission an element criminal offense from federal can constitute harmless error. 547 1069, 126 1776, 164 Ed. 2d 515 (2006). Although Government expressly declined "seek review court appeals' threshold holdings commission was attempted unlawful reentry element," Pet. Cert. n. 3, "`[i]t is not habit decide questions constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary decision case,'" Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 347, 56 466, 80 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (quoting Burton States, 196 283, 295, 25 243, 49 482 (1905)). For reason, after oral argument we ordered parties file supplemental briefs directed respondent's *786 fact defective. conclude it therefore reverse without reaching harmless-error issue. I Respondent deported twice, once 1988 again 2002, before on June 1, 2003. On day, walked up port entry displayed photo identification cousin border agent. told agent legal resident traveling Calexico, California. did resemble cousin, questioned, taken into custody, ultimately charged with violation 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).[1] The alleged: "On or about 2003, JUAN RESENDIZ-PONCE, alien, knowingly intentionally enter States America at near Luis District having been previously denied admission, excluded, deported, removed Nogales, 15, obtained express consent Secretary Homeland Security reapply admission. "In Title 8, Code, Sections 1326(a) enhanced (b)(2)." App. 8. moved dismiss indictment, contending "fail[ed] essential element, act, state facts such act." Id., 12. motion and, found him guilty, sentenced 63-month term imprisonment. Ninth Circuit reversed, reasoning indictment's "an fatal flaw subject mere error analysis." 425 F.3d 729, 732 (2005). In court's view, fatally flawed because nowhere alleged "any substantial step" toward completion reentry.[2]Id., 733. panel majority explained: *787 "The defendant has right be apprised what government will try prove trial, have grand consider charge act. Physical crossing inspection area but one number other acts might as step tendering bogus card; successful clearance area; lying officer purpose being admitted.... never passed Resendiz given notice would proved trial." Ibid. Judge Reavley concurred, agreeing precedent mandated reversal. If bound precedent, however, "constitutionally sufficient" clearly informed "of precise which [was] accused so [could] prepare defense judgment thereon [would] safeguard subsequent prosecution same offense." II At common law, attempt commit crime itself if perpetrator only intended completed offense, also performed "`some open deed tending execution intent.'" 2 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law 11.2(a), p. 205 (2d ed.2003) E. Coke, Third Institute 5 (6th ed. 1680)); see Keedy, Attempts Common Law, U. Pa. Rev. 464, 468 (1954) (noting common-law required "that some must done towards carrying out intent"). More recently, requisite "open deed" described "overt act" constitutes "substantial completing offense. 11.4; ALI, Model Penal Code 5.01(1)(c) (1985) (defining "criminal attempt" include constituting course conduct planned culminate crime"); Braxton 500 344, 349, 111 1854, 114 385 (1991) ("For guilty killing under 18 1114, crime, had mens rea"). As true intent violate statute punishable accompanied significant conduct. does disagree submission cannot qualifying goal. See Supplemental Brief 7-8. Nor dispute "[a]n forth each charges." Almendarez-Torres 523 224, 228, 118 1219, 140 350 (1998). It instead contends bar implicitly engaged "simply alleging `attempted States.'" agree. Not word "attempt" used parlance connote action rather than intent, more importantly, law centuries, encompasses both elements. Consequently, illegal *788 need specifically particular any "component par[t]" Hamling 418 87, 119, 94 2887, 41 590 (1974). Just enough mailed "obscene" material 1461, U.S., 117-118, case point relevant "[o]n 2003," "attempted Arizona,"[3] Hamling, identified two requirements indictment: "first, [that it] contains elements fairly informs against defend, second, enables plead acquittal future prosecutions 117, 2887. case, use "attempt," coupled specification time place satisfied both. Indeed, time-and-place information provided adequate describing acts. After all, may approached lied border-patrol countless attempts innumerable occasions. time-and-date ample protection risk multiple crime.[4] nonetheless maintains sufficient three during reentry: presented misleading inspector. 7. Individually cumulatively, those tend attemptbut none finding guilt case. All were part single culminating "attempt." Holmes explained Swift & Co. 375, 396, 276, 518 (1905), "[t]he unity plan embraces all parts."[5] *789 correct while parroting language often sufficient, there are crimes greater specificity. clear example making witness summoned congressional committee refuse "pertinent inquiry." 192. length our Russell 369 749, 82 1038, 240 (1962), valid refusal testify go beyond words 192 hearing order determine defendant's "pertinent." Based cases arising investigations, recognized hearing's frequently uncertain invariably "central every statute." 764, 1038. Both provide fair defendants ensure arise theory jury, held indictments do restate statute. Our suggests no infirmity present First, unlike issue Russell, "depen[d] crucially upon fact." Second, explaining special particularity charges brought 192, Stewart noted that, 1872, Congress enacted reflecting "the drift away rules technical formalized pleading characterized earlier era."[6] 762, Other statute, repealed 1948, legislation dealing generally until promulgation Rule Procedure 7(c)(1). said, Rules "were designed eliminate technicalities pleadings construed secure simplicity procedure." Debrow, 346 374, 376, 74 113, 98 92 (1953). While detailed allegations well rules, see, e.g., Commonwealth Peaslee, 177 Mass. 267, 59 N.E. 55 (1901), they surely contemplated 7(c)(1), provides "shall plain, concise, definite written statement charged."[7] fully complied deprive *790 guarantee confer, remand further proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. SCALIA, dissenting. established crime. (1998); Cook, 17 Wall. 168, 174, 21 538 (1872). acknowledges, likewise substantive elements: underlying undertaking ante, 787 (citing (hereinafter LaFave), 1680), L.Rev. (1954)). (1991). should follow, then, when indicts took its commission. Any rule contrary exception standard practice. gives reasons exception. says "common parlance" "connote[s]," "impli[es]," overt-act Ante, 787. This strikes me certainly irrelevant, probably incorrect boot. irrelevant because, just discussed, always explicitly called mind name Burglary, example, connotes building felonious yet require forth. precedents make "fully, directly, expressly, uncertainty ambiguity, offence punished." Carll, 105 611, 612, 26 1135 (1881) (emphasis added). And Court's doubt meaning conveys precision requires. reasonable juror, relying nothing term, believe plus minor "`substantial step'" acknowledges required, Besides appealing parlance," relies attempt, "as centuries... elements." 788. Once again, seems incorrect. Many retained relatively static throughout history, burglary among them; thought excuse incorrect, definition nearly suggests. Nearly century ago, leading criminal-law treatise pointed "`attempt' peculiarly indefinite" "no prescribed meaning." 1 Wharton, 229, 298 (11th ed.1912). Even modern upon, 787, explainsin *791 subsection entitled Confusion"that jurisdictions vary widely how define actus reus. LaFave 11.4(a), 218-219. Among variations are: "`an offense"; `in furtherance of" offense; "`a crime'"; appreciable fragment wonderfully opaque "`commencement consummation.'" (footnote omitted). These simply different ways saying step." invokes, 787-788, that: model. establish degree homogeneity asserts. contention "federal system" "well-settled" 22, tells us nothing; many terms definition, universally accepted Government. "knowingly America," focuses needed second accepts opinion, could omitted phrase intentionally," since understood "for centuries." Would say first-degree murder, "malice aforethought" commonly understood, it? Surely not. sole judicial authority cites novel traditional (other unpublished 788, 3) portion consists following: obscenity . fact, law; `obscene,' merely generic descriptive art. change indictment; sufficiently give him. Since various component parts sufficiency, adequately inform petitioners them." 118-119, 2887 (citations these sentences broad principle asserts, apply crimes, effecting revolution jurisprudence regarding easily distinguishable. "Obscenity" is, sure, publishing obscenity. But "various obscenity" "building" burglary. To definitions met conviction; contained within requirement, end prolixity indictments. There *792 here "intent" Hamling. dispensed charging finds another "instructive": "If indicted ever mentioning illogical `attempt' fails 789, disagree; entirely logical. indict prosecutor persuade accused's fulfilled so, rea (which almost including burglary, do), then unquestionably welli.e., meant (no matter demanding requirement) direction. That say, lesser included grand-jury necessarily separately charged. When, seeks tell requires "some, crime"; specify consist of. He reason instruct petit elements, Devitt, C. Blackmar, O'Malley, Jury Practice Instructions 21.03, Notes, 4, Notes (4th ed.1990) (collecting cases), even attempt: Without specification, petit, intelligently find attempt. Finally, something parasitic bald attempt; true, begins "a." why one, other, anything purposes, hence substance, requirement. Conspiracy also, most cases, Despite straightforward application oft-recited principles jurisprudence, persuaded recognize (illogical) demonstrated recitation effort falls far short; undertaken effort. allow others invalidate failure 15-21. matters sort arose courts courts; historical general jurisprudence. prevail. clear, whether, held, trial. Cf. *793 (1962). suffices support judgment, Resendiz-Ponce "took end. * My dissenting view faulty (a requested briefing) puts odd position who certiorari: constitutionally deficient structural error, amenable analysis. vote affirm resolving full undoubtedly speak day (it dodged bullet today inviting deciding issuealbeit, fair, narrower one) little my setting views detail. come surprise, opinions Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 140, 2557, 165 409 (2006), Neder 527 30, 119 1827, 144 35 (1999) (opinion concurring part), structural. Circuit. NOTES [1] 1326 provides, part: "Reentry aliens "(a) "Subject (b) section, alien who "(1) departed exclusion, deportation, removal outstanding, thereafter "(2) enters, enter, in, (A) prior reembarkation outside admission foreign contiguous territory, General consented alien's reapplying admission; (B) respect removed, shall obtain advance chapter Act, fined tide 18, imprisoned years, both." [2] Circuit, five [T]he purpose, i.e., conscious desire, General; (2) reentering consent; (3) citizen States; (4) lawfully (5) reentry." Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 1188, 1196 (2000) (en banc). [3] Toma, 94-CR-333, 1995 WL 65031, *1 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 13, 1995) ("[F]or 'attempt' incorporate element. means taking omitted)). [4] practical difference between holding SCALIA's position. Apparently, SCALIA stated "`took entering post, 792-793 (dissenting opinion). Unlike false Compare ibid, 733 (2005) (case below). With due principled position, think requirement implicit adding four prosecution. [5] Likewise, unrealistic suggest actually separate offenses involving treated conceivably qualify several offenses, thus perversely enhancing, avoiding, successive wrong. [6] 1872 district circuit ... deemed insufficient, nor proceeding affected defect imperfection form only, prejudice defendant." Stat. 198. repealed, substance preserved 52(a). [7] 31(c) instructive. charged; charged, own right." Fed. Crim. Proc. 31(c)(2)-(3).

Category: 0