| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Titus 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 man named Titus who was charged with the crime of embezzlement. The indictment failed to allege that the money was taken from the United States, which was an essential element of the crime. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was insufficient and that Titus could not be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the crime in order to be valid. The Court also held that the indictment must be specific enough to inform the defendant of the charges against him. The Court concluded that the indictment in this case was insufficient and that Titus could not be convicted of the crime.
In Titus v. United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant could be convicted of embezzlement for taking money from his employer that he believed to be due him as wages. The majority opinion held that the defendant's belief did not matter and that it was sufficient for conviction if the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he had taken property belonging to another without permission or authority. In dissent, Justice Field argued that since there were no allegations of fraud or deceit in this case, it should have been left up to the jury to decide whether or not they believed the defendant acted under an honest belief in his right to take possession of what he thought were unpaid wages owed by his employer. He further stated that even though such beliefs may have been mistaken, they should still be considered when deciding guilt or innocence because punishing someone who honestly believes their actions are justified is contrary to natural justice and would lead people into believing they can never rely on their own judgment but must always defer instead only upon legal advice before acting on any issue involving potential criminal liability.