Runkle 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 an essential element of the offense. The case involved a defendant, Runkle, who was charged with the crime of embezzlement. The indictment failed to allege that the defendant had acted with fraudulent intent, which was an essential element of the crime. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was insufficient to support a conviction because it failed to allege an essential element of the offense. The Court reasoned that the indictment must contain all of the essential elements of the offense in order to provide the defendant with sufficient notice of the charges against him. The Court also noted that the defendant should not be held to answer for a crime that was not alleged in the indictment. The Court's decision in Runkle v. United States established the principle that an indictment must contain all of the essential elements of the offense in order to provide the defendant with sufficient notice of the charges against him. This principle has been applied in subsequent cases and is an important part of criminal procedure in the United States.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Runkle v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that it would be absurd for a defendant to be convicted of an offense without any proof of criminal intent or knowledge on their part, as required by law. Furthermore, he noted that there were no facts presented which showed any such intent or knowledge on the part of Runkle; rather, all evidence indicated his innocence. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that the conviction should have been reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with due process principles established by prior Supreme Court decisions.