United States v. Smith

107 F. Supp. 839
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 16, 1952
DocketCr. 12280
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 107 F. Supp. 839 (United States v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Smith, 107 F. Supp. 839 (M.D. Pa. 1952).

Opinion

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is differentiated from an indictment in that an indictment is returned under oath by the Grand Jury and it may only be superseded by.an indictment of equal solemnity.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.

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

Related

American Samoa Government v. Toilolo
6 Am. Samoa 3d 106 (High Court of American Samoa, 2002)
State v. Cardwell
609 P.2d 1230 (Montana Supreme Court, 1980)
United States v. James Conrad Williams
412 F.2d 625 (Third Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Klissas
218 F. Supp. 880 (D. Maryland, 1963)
State v. Coffield
171 A.2d 62 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 F. Supp. 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-smith-pamd-1952.