In United States v. Hendee, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The defendant, Hendee, was indicted for the crime of embezzlement, but the indictment failed to allege that the defendant 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, as 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 crime in order to support a conviction. The Court further held that the indictment could not be amended to include the element of intent to defraud, as the amendment would constitute a new charge and the defendant had not been given notice of the new charge.

In United States v. Hendee, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a defendant could be convicted of two separate offenses for one act in violation of both state and federal law. The majority opinion held that the defendant could not be convicted twice for the same offense, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that Congress had authority under its power to regulate interstate commerce to pass laws punishing violations of both state and federal law simultaneously. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress did not have such authority then it would be powerless against certain crimes which were committed across multiple states or territories since they are beyond the reach of any single jurisdiction's criminal code. Finally, he concluded by stating that allowing dual convictions would serve as an effective deterrent against those who might otherwise commit such acts with impunity due to jurisdictional limitations on prosecution alone.