United States v. Resendiz-Ponce
549 U.S. 102, 127 S.Ct. 782, 166 L.Ed.2d 591 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An indictment charging a federal attempt offense is constitutionally sufficient if it alleges that the defendant 'attempted' to commit a crime at a specific time and place. The word 'attempt' itself implicitly encompasses the essential elements of both criminal intent and the commission of an overt act, making it unnecessary to allege a specific overt act in the indictment.
Facts:
- Juan Resendiz-Ponce, a Mexican citizen, had previously been deported from the United States on two separate occasions, most recently in 2002.
- On June 1, 2003, Resendiz-Ponce walked up to a port of entry in San Luis, Arizona.
- He presented a border agent with a photo identification card that belonged to his cousin.
- Resendiz-Ponce falsely stated to the agent that he was a legal resident and was traveling to Calexico, California.
- Because Resendiz-Ponce did not resemble the person in the photograph on the identification card, he was subjected to further questioning and taken into custody.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged Juan Resendiz-Ponce by indictment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona with attempted illegal reentry.
- Resendiz-Ponce filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing it failed to allege the essential element of an overt act.
- The District Court (trial court) denied the motion.
- Following a trial, a jury found Resendiz-Ponce guilty.
- Resendiz-Ponce appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed the conviction, holding that the indictment's omission of an overt act was a fatal flaw, and remanded the case for dismissal.
- The United States (petitioner) was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal indictment for attempted illegal reentry, which alleges the defendant 'attempted to enter' the United States on a specific date and at a specific location, sufficiently allege all elements of the offense even if it does not specify a particular overt act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes. An indictment alleging that a defendant 'attempted' to commit a crime is sufficient because the word 'attempt,' as a legal term of art used for centuries, encompasses both the required intent and the commission of an overt act. The indictment satisfied the two core constitutional requirements outlined in Hamling v. United States: it contained the elements of the offense, thereby fairly informing the defendant of the charge, and it enabled him to plead double jeopardy against a future prosecution for the same offense. Specifying the time and place of the attempted reentry provided more meaningful notice and protection than would listing one of several overt acts that were all part of a single course of conduct. Adherence to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1), which calls for a 'plain, concise, and definite written statement,' supports moving away from hyper-technical common-law pleading requirements.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. A valid indictment must explicitly allege every element of the charged offense, and an 'overt act' is a distinct and essential element of the crime of attempt. Relying on the common understanding or implicit meaning of the word 'attempt' violates the long-standing rule that an indictment must 'fully, directly, and expressly' set forth all necessary elements. The majority's reliance on Hamling is misplaced; the 'component parts' of a legal definition like obscenity are not themselves elements of the crime, whereas an 'overt act' is a core element of attempt that a grand jury must find probable cause to believe occurred. The indictment should have at least alleged that Resendiz-Ponce 'took a substantial step' toward illegal entry.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the modern, simplified approach to federal criminal pleading under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly for inchoate offenses like attempt. By holding that a legal term of art like 'attempt' is sufficient to plead its underlying elements, the Court reduces the burden on prosecutors and prevents indictments from being dismissed on technicalities. This ruling streamlines the indictment process but, as the dissent argues, potentially diminishes the role of the grand jury in scrutinizing each specific element of a crime before issuing a charge. It clarifies that specific evidentiary facts, like which overt act was committed, need not be pleaded so long as the core legal elements are charged.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Resendiz-Ponce