United States v. Ralph M. Crow

824 F.2d 761, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 10645

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 11, 1987
• Docket: 86-1234
• Status: Published

Opinions

KOELSCH, Circuit Judge:

Crow urges but two grounds for reversal of his conviction:

1. That the information does not charge a crime,¹

2. That the evidence is insufficient to establish guilt.

Neither has merit.

1. The use of a “bare bones” information — that is one employing the statutory language alone — is quite common and entirely permissible so long as the statute sets forth fully, directly and clearly all essential elements of the crime to be punished. United States v. Matthews, 572 F.2d 208 (9th Cir.1978).

Here, the information tracked the language of the pertinent regulation CFR 101-20.305; that regulation makes penal “Any conduct ... which impedes or disrupts the performance of official duties by Government employeesThe essential element of that offense is thus conduct producing the prohibited result and it does appear that this information does charge Crow with such conduct. True, the information lacks particulars but it did put him on notice that the conduct was of the kind made penal; the details of the conduct was not a matter of substance and their inclusion would have added nothing save unnecessary evidentiary matter going to the proof of that conduct. Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 731-32 (9th Cir.1963).

2. The basic facts adduced at trial were essentially uncontradicted. The district judge — the case was tried to the court— carefully and we think, fairly, summed up the evidence; his ensuing findings, giving them due deference (see Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1941)) fully support the judgment of guilt.²

AFFIRMED.

1 . Crow did not raise this objection in district court but it nonetheless is now available to him Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2).

2 . At no time either in the district court or here, did Crow, a practicing attorney, raise any issue regarding 40 U.S.C. § 318(a). We see no compelling reason to gratuitously do so now. None of the three cases cited in the dissent is germane, save perhaps Strakoff and that decision only serves to support the view that posting is not material; there the Fifth Circuit at least hinted that the matter was evidentiary: "Because of this inconformity and absent any showing that Strakoff did not in fact have notice of the proscription of CFR 101-20.313 the conviction cannot stand.”