Bulkley v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The case involved a defendant, Bulkley, who was charged with the crime of embezzlement. The indictment failed to allege that Bulkley had taken the money with the intent to defraud the United States. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was insufficient to support a conviction because it failed to allege the essential element of intent to defraud. The Court reasoned that the intent to defraud was an essential element of the crime of embezzlement and that the indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the offense in order to support a conviction. The Court noted that the indictment must be sufficient to put the defendant on notice of the charges against him and to enable him to prepare a defense. The Court concluded that the indictment in this case was insufficient to support a conviction because it failed to allege the essential element of intent to defraud.

In Bulkley v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of an offense that had been committed before Congress passed legislation making it illegal. The majority opinion held that since the act in question had not been declared criminal when it occurred, there could be no conviction for its commission. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that Congress has the power to make acts retroactively criminal if they are deemed necessary for public safety or welfare. He further noted that such laws have long existed in England and other countries without any constitutional challenge being raised against them. In conclusion, he believed that while such laws may seem harsh at times, they are ultimately necessary for protecting society as a whole from dangerous activities which would otherwise go unpunished due to their prior legality.