United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007)

In the case of United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, Juan Resendiz-Ponce, a Mexican citizen, was convicted by a jury for illegally attempting to reenter the United States after being deported twice, once in 1988 and again in 2002. On June 1, 2003, he approached a U.S. port of entry, presented a photo identification of his cousin, and falsely claimed to be a legal resident traveling to Calexico, California. Due to his failure to resemble his cousin, border agents detained him, leading to charges under 8 U.S.C. §1326(a) for attempting to enter the U.S. without permission. The procedural history began when Resendiz-Ponce moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it did not allege an essential element of the offense—specifically, a specific overt act. The District Court denied this motion, and he was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to 63 months in prison. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, stating that the indictment's omission of an essential element constituted a fatal flaw that could not be subjected to harmless error analysis. The appellate court determined that the indictment failed to specify any overt act that would demonstrate a substantial step toward unlawful reentry. The Supreme Court granted the Government's petition for certiorari to address whether the omission of an element from a federal indictment can be considered harmless error. Notably, the Government did not contest the Ninth Circuit's findings regarding the necessity of alleging an overt act in the indictment. After oral arguments, the Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefs to determine the validity of the indictment, ultimately concluding that it was not defective and reversing the Ninth Circuit's decision without addressing the harmless-error issue.

Whether the omission of an element of a criminal offense from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error.

The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is affirmed.