Max Weisberg v. State of Minnesota
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
1DissentHeaney, Senior Circuit Judge
I have no alternative but to dissent. Intent is an essential element of the crime of sports bookmaking, and the State failed to allege in the indictment that Max Weisberg had the necessary intent. The failure to allege intent was more than a “technical defect,” as the majority the very heart of the indictment and deprived Weisberg of due process.
The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that where specific intent is an essential element of a crime that intent must be alleged in the indictment. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763-64, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1046-47, 8 L.Ed.2d 240…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Russell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- United States v. Ernest Michael WilsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Alfonso Adalberto Pupo, United States of America v. George GovantesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
- Williams v. CollinsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- McKay v. CollinsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.