TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith, 107 F. Supp. 839 (M.D. Penn. 1952)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Federal District Courts
Decided
October 16, 1952
Docket
No. Cr. 12280
Judges
Watson
Citations
107 F. Supp. 839

Opinion of the Court — Watson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WATSON, Chief Judge.

This is a motion by defendant to dismiss a criminal information. Count One of the information charges the defendant with having forged an endorsement on an United States treasury check with intent to defraud the United States in violation, of Title 18 U.S.C. § 471 ; Count Two charges utterance of the check with the forged endorsement in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 472 .

Defendant contends that both of these sections have to do with the forgery of governmental obligations and not endorsements thereon, and that the crime, if any, committed by the -defendant was a forgery of a writing under Title ■ 18 U.S.’C. § 495. The government concedes that the defendant is correct and requests the Court for permission to amend the information.

An information, being the official act filed under the oath or certificate of. the United States Attorney, is differentiated from an indictment in that an indictment is returned under oath by the Grand Jury and it may only be superseded by.an indictment of equal solemnity. An information,- not being founded on the oath of a Grand Jury, may be amended in either form or substance. Armstrong v. United States of America, 9 Cir., 1926, 16 F.2d 62 ; Bigrow v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa.1947, 70 F.Supp. 826 .

.Since the information clearly informs the defendant that .he is being charged with having falsely forged an endorsement on an United States treasury check and uttered the same, an amendment of the information- to charge defendant with having 'Violated' Title 18 U.S.C. § 495 will not prejudice the’substantial rights of the defendant.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1961: 11963: 11969: 11974: 11980: 12002: 119612026peak 1961 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Cardwell609 P.2d 1230 (Mont. 1980)
  2. United States v. Gerald F495 F.2d 1329 (1st Cir. 1974)
  3. United States v. James Conrad Williams412 F.2d 625 (3d Cir. 1969)
  4. State v. Coffield171 A.2d 62 (Del. Super. Ct. 1961)
  5. United States v. Klissas218 F. Supp. 880 (D. Maryland 1963)
  6. American Samoa Government v. Toilolo6 Am. Samoa 3d 106 (Am. Samoa 2002)

Most recent

  1. American Samoa Government v. Toilolo6 Am. Samoa 3d 106 (Am. Samoa 2002)
  2. State v. Cardwell609 P.2d 1230 (Mont. 1980)
  3. United States v. Gerald F495 F.2d 1329 (1st Cir. 1974)
  4. United States v. James Conrad Williams412 F.2d 625 (3d Cir. 1969)
  5. United States v. Klissas218 F. Supp. 880 (D. Maryland 1963)
  6. State v. Coffield171 A.2d 62 (Del. Super. Ct. 1961)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Armstrong v. United States, 16 F.2d 62 (9th Cir. 1926) 36
Bigrow v. Hiatt, 70 F. Supp. 826 (M.D. Penn. 1947) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list