In Wood v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment failed to allege an essential element of the offense. The defendant, Wood, was charged with the crime of embezzlement from the United States. The indictment failed to allege that the defendant had acted with fraudulent intent. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was insufficient and that the defendant 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 noted that the intent to defraud was an essential element of the crime of embezzlement and that the indictment failed to allege this element. Therefore, the Court held that the indictment was insufficient and that the defendant could not be convicted of the crime. The Court also noted that the defendant had not waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the indictment. The Court held that the defendant had a right to challenge the sufficiency of the indictment and that the indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the crime in order to be valid.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wood v. United States, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law requiring citizens to pay taxes on their income from any source whatsoever. He argued that such a tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy and due process of law. Furthermore, he asserted that if Congress could impose such a tax, then it would have unlimited power over all aspects of life and commerce in the country - something which is not allowed under our Constitution. Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that this case should be decided based on constitutional principles rather than political expediency or convenience for either party involved.