UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MARTIN J. PHILLIPPI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An indictment charging assault with a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) is not defective for failing to allege the assault was committed without just cause or excuse.
Defendant was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(c) for allegedly cutting Lynn Peters with a knife. The jury…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assault With A Dangerous Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was charged in Count 2 of the indictment with a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(c) in that he assaulted another with a dangerous weapon to do bodily harm. He allegedly placed a large knife at the throat of Lynn Peters and cut her neck. The jury found defendant guilty on Count 2 and acquitted defendant on Count 1, in which he was charged with kidnapping.
The only issue on appeal is whether an indictment charging assault with a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) is defective when it fails to allege that the defendant committed the assault without just cause or excuse.
The Magistrate in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss Count 2 relied on an earlier decision by Judge Gordon, who presided at this trial, in U. S. v. Peters, 476 F.Supp. 259 (E.D.Wis.1979). In Peters Judge Gordon decided that the prosecution was not obliged to include a reference to “just cause or excuse” in the indictment. Id. at 262.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Hockenberry v. U. S., 442 F. 2d 171, 173 (1970), decided that it was not necessary to recite in the indictment that the assault was “without just cause or excuse.”
We agree with the Ninth Circuit in Hock-enberry and with Judge Gordon in Peters.
The judgment of conviction on Count 2 is therefore affirmed.