UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ARBRUARY DALE CAMPBELL AND LARRY K. HOLMES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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.
The court held that the indictments were sufficient to state an offense against the United States.
Appellants were charged with using destructive devices to collect insurance. The devices were described as homemade incendiary bombs.…
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 Elements Of An Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
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 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733 (5th Cir. 1983)
-
United States v. Quintero, 872 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1989)
-
United States v. Beason, 690 F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1982)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1962)
- United States v. Varkonyi, 645 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1981)
- United States v. UNI OIL, Inc., 646 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1981)
- United States v. Mouton, 657 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1981)
- United States v. Broome, 628 F.2d 403 (5th Cir. 1980)
- United States v. Wilson, 546 F.2d 1175 (5th Cir. 1977)