The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Nuanez, 110 F.3d 71 (9th Cir. 1997):
We need not reach that issue, however, because the jury instructions adequately set forth the elements of the crime of passing a counterfeit money order in violation of 18 U.S.C. 500. "The indictment charged [Nuanez] in the conjunctive, with both passing and uttering. This is the standard form of an indictment, however, and the government only has to prove one or the other where the statute is disjunctive." United States v. DeFilippis, 637 F.2d 1370, 1374 n. 7 (9th Cir.1981) (emphasis in original). 2 We have held that a false representation is not a necessary element for passing a forged money order. Kniess v. United States, 413 F.2d 752, 759 (9th Cir.1969). There is no dispute that the jury was adequately instructed on the offense of passing forged money orders. Therefore, we affirm the defendant's conviction. 3
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.