United States v. Resendiz-Ponce

Summary

The Court held that an indictment charging attempted unlawful reentry was sufficient even though it did not identify a particular overt act or expressly allege a substantial step. The word "attempt," together with the charged statute and the specified time and place, implicitly alleged the required conduct and provided constitutionally adequate notice and protection against successive prosecution. Because the indictment was valid, the Court reversed without deciding whether omission of an offense element would be harmless error. Justice Scalia, dissenting, would have held that the indictment was constitutionally defective because it failed to allege that respondent took a substantial step.