Stephens v. United States

262 F. 957, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1619
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 9, 1920·No. No. 3349·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error urges that the indictment “does not allege any intent whatsoever.” It is true that it does not use the word “intent,” but the allegation that defendant knowingly, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously did attempt to pause and create insubordination and disloyalty in the military and naval forces, by doing the things charged, sufficiently charged that the altempt was done with willful and unlawful purpose. Bise v. United States, 144 Fed. 374, 74 C. C. A. 1, 7 Ann. Cas. 165; People v. Butler, 1 Idaho, 231; State v. Rechnitz, 20 Mont. 488, 52 Pac. 264; State v. Clark, 32 Nev. 145, 104 Pac. 593, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 754; Atkinson v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 424, 30 S. W. 1064; State v. Hagar, 50 W. Va. 370, 40 S. E. 393; Bunch v. State, 58 Fla. 9, 50 South. 534, 138 Am. St. Rep. 91; State v. Daly, 41 Or. 515, 70 Pac. 706; State v. Hughes, 31 Nev. 270, 102 Pac. 562; People v. Willett, 102 N. Y. 251, 6 N. E. 301.

Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stephens v. United States, 262 F. 957, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1619 (9th Cir. 1920).

262 F. 957 (Stephens v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Marzani
71 F. Supp. 615 (District of Columbia, 1947)
State v. Shedoudy
118 P.2d 280 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1941)