Claassen v. United States, 142 U.S. 140 (1891). · Go Syfert
Search
Claassen v. United States, 142 U.S. 140 (1891). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

A general verdict and judgment on an indictment containing several counts cannot be reversed on error if any one of the counts is sufficient to warrant the judgment.

A defendant was convicted on an indictment containing several counts. Although the sufficiency of certain counts was challenged, the first count sufficiently alleged that the defendant, as president of a national banking association, embezzled bonds to defraud the association. The court must determine if a general verdict can be sustained if one count is valid. Under settled law, a general verdict and judgment on an indictment containing several counts cannot be reversed on error if any one of the counts is good and warrants the judgment. Because the first count was sufficient to support the sentence, the sufficiency of the remaining counts need not be considered.

592 citation events (33 in the last 25 years) across 44 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gourdeau v. City of Newton, 238 F. Supp. 3d 179 (D. Mass. 2017)
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900 1963 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 146 Presumption of judgment on good count in multiple counts17 citing cases“In criminal cases, the general rule, as stated by Lord Mansfield before the Declaration of Independence, is ‘that if there is any one count to support the verdict, it shall stand good, notwithstanding all the rest are bad.’ And it is settled law in this court, and in this country generally, that in…”2 citing courts quote it · 16 listed here
  • State v. Lewis (2021).published
    (other citations omitted)
  • United States v. Anthony Gonzales, 841 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2016).published
    The third is that the defendant aided and abetted a conspirator who used or carried a firearm during and in relation to the drug trafficking crime in Count One that resulted in the death of Sean Lamb, whether or not the defendant was a mem…
  • United States v. Rodriguez, 66 M.J. 201 (C.A.A.F. 2008).published
    Because the verdict attaches to all theories, the verdict may stand despite trial errors “‘if any one of the counts is good and warrants the judgment.’” Griffin, 502 U.S. at 49 (quoting Claassen v. United States, 142 U.S. 140, 146 (1891)).
  • United States v. Nieves Burgos, No. 94-1370 (1st Cir. July 13, 1995).published
    See id. ___ __ Indeed, the rule was declared by Lord Mansfield at King's Bench before the Declaration of Independence: "if there is any one count to support the verdict, it shall stand good, notwithstanding all the rest are bad." Peake v.…
  • Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991).published 2 cites
    “In criminal cases, the general rule, as stated by Lord Mansfield before the Declaration of Independence, is ‘that if there is any one count to support the verdict, it shall stand good, notwithstanding all the rest are b…”
  • Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers v. Hardeman, 401 U.S. 233 (1971).published 2 cites
    Turner v. United States, 396 U. S. 398, 420 (1970); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 115 (1959); Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140, 146-147 (1891); see also cases cited in Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576 , 613 n. 2 (196…
  • Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).published
    Drawing upon some English cases and some dicta from Lord Mansfield, 4 the Court in Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140, 146 (1891), held that if the defendant had validly been convicted on any one count “the other counts need not be c…
  • Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969).published 3 cites
    Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140, 146-147 (1891), speaks for the law at that time: “And it is settled law in this court, and in this country generally, that in any criminal case a general verdict and judgment on an indictment or in…
  • United States v. Irving Hines, 256 F.2d 561 (2d Cir. 1958).published
    The doctrine urged by the government originated in Claassen v. United States, 142 U.S. 140, 146, 147 , 12 S.Ct. 169, 170 , 35 L.Ed. 966 .
  • Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).published
    It is settled law, as stated in Claassen v. United States, 142 U.S. 140, 146, 147 , 12 S.Ct. 169, 170 , 35 L.Ed. 966 , 'that in any criminal case a general verdict and judgment on an indictment or information containing several counts cann…
Show 6 more citing cases
  • Bowen v. United States, 153 F.2d 747 (8th Cir. 1946).published
    The judgment appealed from is affirmed. 1 “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person in the sale of any securities * * * by the use of the mails, directly or indirectly— “(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or “(2) to o…
  • United States v. Murphy, 123 F.2d 1008 (3d Cir. 1941).published
    Pierce et al. v. United States, 252 U.S. 239, 252, 253 , 40 S.Ct. 205 , 64 L.Ed. 542 ; Evans v. United States (No. 2), 153 U. S. 608, 609 , 14 S.Ct. 939 , 38 L.Ed. 839 ; Claassen v. United States, 142 U.S. 140, 146, 147 , 12 S.Ct. 169 , 35…
  • Barry v. United States, 65 F.2d 660 (3d Cir. 1933).published
    Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140, 146, 147 , 12 S. Ct. 169 , 35 L.
  • C. M. Spring Drug Co. v. United States, 12 F.2d 852 (8th Cir. 1926).published 2 cites
    Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140,146 [ 12 S. Ct. 169 , 35 L.
  • Bruno v. United States, 289 F. 649 (1st Cir. 1923).published
    “the presumption of law is that the court awarded sentence on the good count only”
  • Dimmick v. United States, 116 F. 825 (9th Cir. 1902).published
    In Claasen v. U. S., 142 U. S. 140, 146, 12 .
At page 140 [I]t is settled law in this court, and in this country generally, that in any criminal case a general verdict and judgment on an indictment or information containing several counts cannot be reversed on error if any one of the counts is good, and warrants the judgment.2 citing cases2 citing courts put it this way
  • Gourdeau v. City of Newton, 238 F. Supp. 3d 179 (D. Mass. 2017).published 3 cites
    ([I]t is settled law in this court, and in this country generally, that in any criminal case a general verdict and judgment on an indictment or information containing several counts cannot be reversed on error if any on…)
  • United States v. Joanna Pimentel, Also Known as \La Madrina, 346 F.3d 285 (2003).published 3 cites
    “[I]t is settled law in this court, and in this country generally, that in any criminal case a general verdict and judgment on an indictment or information containing several counts cannot be reversed on error, if any on…”
12 S. Ct. at 170 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • United States v. Rice, 815 F. Supp. 158 (W.D.N.C. 1993).published
    Id. at 146, 12 S.Ct. at 170 (emphasis added).
  • Wicks v. Lockhart, 569 F. Supp. 549 (E.D. Ark. 1983).published
    Claassen, 142 U.S. at 146-47 , 12 S.Ct. at 170 (citations omitted).
At page 169 cited at this page1 citing case
  • United States v. Lair, 195 F. 47 (8th Cir. 1912).published
    Claasen v. United States; 142 U. S. 140 , 12 Sup. Ct. 169, 35 L.
Other citing cases12 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Show 2 more citing cases
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Claassen
v.
United States
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 21, 1891.
Published opinion
142 U.S. 140
1891 U.S. LEXIS 2576
Mr. Hector M. Hitchings (with whom was Mr. Samuel Shelldbarger) for plaintiff in error., Mr. Solicitor General for defendants in error.
Gray.
Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 64%
Citer courts: D. Massachusetts (2)
Mr. Justice Gray,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

- There can be no doubt of the sufficiency of the first count on which the defendant, was convicted. It avers that the defendant was president of a national banking association; that by'virtue of his office he received and took into his possession' certain ’ bonds, (fully described,) the property of the association ; and that, with intent to injure and defraud the association, he embezzled the bonds and converted them to his own use. Qn principle and precedent, no further averment was requisite to a complete and sufficient description of the crime charged. United States v. Britton, 107 U. S. 655, 669; The King v. Johnson, 3 M. & S. 539, 549; Starkie Crim. Pl. (2d ed.) 454; 3 Chitty Crim. Law, 981; 2 Bishop Crim. Pro. §§ 315, 322.

This count and the verdict of guilty returned upon it being sufficient to support the judgment and sentence, the question of the sufficiency of the other counts need not be- considered.

In criminal cases, the general rule, as stated by Lord Mansfield before the Declaration of Independence, is “ that if there is'any one count to support the verdict, it shall stand good, notwithstanding all the rest are bad.” Peake v. Oldham, Cowper, 275, 276; Rex v. Benfield, 2 Bur. 980, 985. See also Grant v. Astle, 2 Doug. 722, 730. And it is settled-law in this court, and in this country generally, that in any criminal case a general verdict and judgment on an indictment or information containing several counts cannot be reversed on error, if any one of the counts is good and warrants the judgment, because, in the absence of anything in the record to[*147] show the contrary, the presumption of law is that the court .awarded sentence on the good count only. Locke v. United States, 7 Cranch, 339, 344; Clifton v. United States, 4 How. 242, 250; Snyder v. United States, 112 U. S. 216; Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, 609; 1 Bishop Crim. Pro. § 1015; Wharton Crim. Pl. & Pract. § 771.

The opposing decision of the House of Lords, in 1844, in the well known case of O’Connell v. The Queen, was carried, as appears by the report in 11 Cl. & Fin. 155, by the votes of Lord Denman, Lord Cottenham and Lord Campbell against the votes of Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Brougham, as well as against the opinions of a large majority of the judges consulted, and the universal understanding and practice of the co,urts and the profession in England before that decision. It has seldom, if ever, been followed in the United States.

In Commonwealth v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 133 Mass. 383, 392, and in Wood v. State, 59 N. Y. 117, 122, relied bn by the plaintiff in error, the general rulé was not impugned, and judgment upon a general verdict was reversed because of erroneous instructions, duly excepted to by the defendant at the trial, expressly authorizing the jury to convict upon an insufficient count.

In the case now before us, the record does not show that any instructions at the trial were excepted to, and the jury did not return a general verdict against the defendant on all the counts, but found him guilty of the offences charged in each of the five counts now in question. This being the case, and the sentence being to imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten, which was the only sentence authorized for a single offence under the statute on which the defendant was indicted, there is no reason why that sentence should hot be applied to any one of the counts which was good.

The objections assigned and argued to the rulings and instructions at the trial cannot be considered by this court. Upon writ of error, no error in law can be reviewed which does not appear upon the record, or by bill of exceptions made part of the record. The case settled by the judge presiding at the trial, pursuant to a rule of the Circuit Court, was for the[*148] single purpose of a hearing in banc in that court, as upon a motion for a new trial, and is no part of the record on error. No bill of exceptions was, or, as we have already adjudged, could have been allowed by the Circuit Court -to the rulings and instructions at the trial, because the conviction of the defendant was before the passage of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, and while the laws did not provide for or permit a bill of exceptions in such a case as this. Neither the assignment of errors, nor the plea of vn nullo est erratum, can give this court jurisdiction of errors not appearing on the face of the record. In re Claassen, 140 U. S. 200.

Judgment affirmed.