Stephens v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Stephens v. United States

262 F. 957, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1619

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 1920

DocketNo. 3349

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 F. 957 (Stephens v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F. 957, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-united-states-ca9-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack