Court Opinion

ID: 9445572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:33:20.681231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:19.973732
License: Public Domain

SHACKELFORD MILLER, Jr., Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result),
Although I agree with the conclusion of the majority opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, I differ somewhat with its reasons for so ruling. I am of the opinion that the indictment was not defective, instead of ruling that *549the alleged defect in the indictment was waived by failure to apply for a bill of particulars.
The indictment charges the defendant with unlawfully receiving and possessing a firearm, “to wit, a silencer, which had been made in violation of Section 5821, Title 26 U.S.C.” The validity of the indictment is attacked on the ground that it refers to the statute by section number instead of stating definitely in the words of the statute the particular way in which it had been illegally made, thus failing to meet the test of certainty required in an indictment. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 431, 52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 861.
If the indictment is defective for that reason, as held in the majority opinion, I think it is fatally defective, even on appeal. The defect will not be waived by a failure to apply for a bill of particulars, Such a defect will be noticed by the court “at any time during the pendency of the proceeding.” Rule 12(b) (2), Rules of Criminal Procedure; Johnson v. United States, 9 Cir., 206 F.2d 80,6, 808; Hotch v. United States, 9 Cir., 208 F.2d 244, 249—250. The sufficiency of an indictment must be judged by the allegations of the indictment. Las Vegas Merchant Plumbers Ass’n v. United States, 9 Cir., 210 F.2d 732, 741, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 817, 75 S.Ct. 29, 99 L.Ed. 645, rehearing denied 348 U.S. 889, 75 S.Ct. 202, 99 L.Ed. 698. It is not affected by the filing of a bill of particulars or the failure to ask for a bill of particulars. It is not a question of whether it could have been more definite and certain or can be made more definite and certain by a bill of particulars. United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 376, 378, 74 S.Ct. 113, 98 L.Ed. 92; Hewitt v. United States, 8 Cir., 110 F.2d 1, 4-5; Perez v. United States, 9 Cir., 10 F.2d 352, 353. The effect of a bill of particulars is to limit the Government in its proof. If required by the court and filed, it does not give life to a defective indictment, but informs the defendant of the particular facts on which the Government intends to rely in proving the offense charged. Jarl v. United States, 8 Cir., 19 F.2d 891, 894; United States v. Johnson, D.C.Del., 53 F.Supp. 167, 172; United States v. McKay, D.C.E.D.Mich., F.Supp. 1007, 1015, United States v. Grunenwald, D.C.W.D.Pa., 66 F.Supp. 223, 227. •
In my opinion the indictment is not defective or invalid on the ground that it is too general and indefinite to sufficiently apprise the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet and to enable him to plead a former acquittal or conviction as a bar in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense, United States v. Debrow, supra, 346 U.S. 374, 74 S.Ct. 113, 98 L.Ed. 92. Rule 7 (c), Rules of Criminal Procedure, prov*des> The indictment or the information sha11 be a PIain> concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” Its sufficiency must be determined on the basis of practical rather than technical considerations. Duke v. United States, 5 Cir., 233 F.2d 897, 899. The practice of ^ne combing indictments for verbal and technical omissions is no longer countenaneed in the courts under the new Rules, and substantial compliance with the purP°se °-f an indictment is^ sufficient. Risken v. United States, 8 Cir., 197 F.2d 959, 961, 963. A sPec.ific reference in the indictment to Section 5821, Title 26 U.S. Code’ as a Practical matter certainly informed the defendant of what he was be™g charged with to the same extent as by setting out in the indictment the specific wording of the section. Similar references did not invalidate indictments in Kempe v. United States, 8 Cir., 151 F.2d 680, 684; United States v. Goldberg, 8 Cir., 225 F.2d 180, 183, 185; Contreras v. United States, 5 Cir., 213 F.2d 96; Reynolds v. United States, 5 Cir., 225 F.2d 123, 125.
It is true that Section 5821, Title 26 U.S.Code, provides several different ways in which the making of a firearm is illegal and the indictment did not allege which one of the specific violations the Government intended to prove. The Government was entitled to rely upon any one or more of them. Accordingly, the *550indictment was not defective as a matter of law. Brink v. United States, 6 Cir., 148 F.2d 325, 329; Smith v. United States, 5 Cir., 234 F.2d 385, 389. Whether the defendant was entitled to learn through a bill of particulars which acts or failures to act on his part the Government would attempt to prove under its claim that the firearm was illegally made, does not in my opinion involve the validity of the indictment. Williams v. United States, 6 Cir., 3 F.2d 933, 934; Risken v. United States, supra, 8 Cir., 197 F.2d 959 961. ’ '