United States v. Arbruary Dale Campbell and Larry K. Holmes

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Arbruary Dale Campbell and Larry K. Holmes

685 F.2d 131, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16365

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 24, 1982

Docket81-2270, 81-2486 and 81-2490

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 685 F.2d 131 (United States v. Arbruary Dale Campbell and Larry K. Holmes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Arbruary Dale Campbell and Larry K. Holmes, 685 F.2d 131, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16365 (5th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The sole questions presented by these companion appeals are whether certain indictments are sufficient to state an offense against the United States. Appellants burned improvements to collect insur *132 anee. In one instance, the device used was alleged to be “a destructive device made from flammable liquid and gun powder with a fuse made of gun powder and a candle .... ” In another, it was charged as “a destructive device made from cloth rags, flammable liquid with a fuse made of incense sticks .... ”

Among the types of “firearms” proscribed (in great part) by Federal law is “a destructive device.” 26 United States Code Section 5845(a)(8). Section 5845(f) defines a destructive device as, among other things, “any ... incendiary ... bomb ... or similar device; ...”

Home-made fire bombs are “destructive devices,” even though their components may all be legally possessed. We have long so held. United States v. Wilson, 546 F.2d 1175, 1177 (5th Cir. 1977) (gasoline, bottle, rags: Molotov cocktail). Nor does it matter, in logic, whether the home-made bomb is compact and easily transported or one of a dispersed nature, assembled on particular premises to accomplish their ruin.

The test to determine the sufficiency of an indictment is whether it contains the essential elements of the offense so that it fairly informs the defendant of the charges against him and adequately enables the defendant to be protected against further prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Mouton, 657 F.2d 736, 739 (5th Cir. 1981), citing United States v. Broome, 628 F.2d 403, 405 (5th Cir. 1980). The validity of an indictment is governed by practical and not technical considerations. United States v. Mouton, 657 F.2d at 739, citing United States v. Varkonyi, 645 F.2d 453, 456 (5th Cir. 1981). In order to dismiss an indictment for failure to state an offense, the court must find that the indictment does not contain the elements of the offense intended to be charged. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962); United States v. Uni Oil, Inc., 646 F.2d 946, 953 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1254, 71 L.Ed.2d 446 (1982).

These did.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

The sole questions presented by these companion appeals are whether certain indictments are sufficient to state an offense against the United States. Appellants burned improvements to collect insur *132 anee. In one instance, the device used was alleged to be “a destructive device made from flammable liquid and gun powder with a fuse made of gun powder and a candle .... ” In another, it was charged as “a destructive device made from cloth rags, flammable liquid with a fuse made of incense sticks .... ”

Among the types of “firearms” proscribed (in great part) by Federal law is “a destructive device.” 26 United States Code Section 5845(a)(8). Section 5845(f) defines a destructive device as, among other things, “any ... incendiary ... bomb ... or similar device; ...”

Home-made fire bombs are “destructive devices,” even though their components may all be legally possessed. We have long so held. United States v. Wilson, 546 F.2d 1175, 1177 (5th Cir. 1977) (gasoline, bottle, rags: Molotov cocktail). Nor does it matter, in logic, whether the home-made bomb is compact and easily transported or one of a dispersed nature, assembled on particular premises to accomplish their ruin.

The test to determine the sufficiency of an indictment is whether it contains the essential elements of the offense so that it fairly informs the defendant of the charges against him and adequately enables the defendant to be protected against further prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Mouton, 657 F.2d 736, 739 (5th Cir. 1981), citing United States v. Broome, 628 F.2d 403, 405 (5th Cir. 1980). The validity of an indictment is governed by practical and not technical considerations. United States v. Mouton, 657 F.2d at 739, citing United States v. Varkonyi, 645 F.2d 453, 456 (5th Cir. 1981). In order to dismiss an indictment for failure to state an offense, the court must find that the indictment does not contain the elements of the offense intended to be charged. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962); United States v. Uni Oil, Inc., 646 F.2d 946, 953 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1254, 71 L.Ed.2d 446 (1982).

These did.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 F.2d 131, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-arbruary-dale-campbell-and-larry-k-holmes-ca5-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack