The Third Judicial District ruled that surpluses can only be removed from an indictment if they are both “irrelevant and prejudicial.” For example, if a state`s arson laws only require a perpetrator to burn or destroy a home owned by him or someone else, an indictment detailing the identity of the victims is considered a surplus. On the other hand, if the evidence supporting the allegation is admissible and relevant to the charge, then no matter how prejudicial the wording is, it should not be suppressed. In a case where a defendant is accused of tax evasion, his employment history with an accounting firm does not constitute a surplus, as it is relevant to prove that the defendant was aware of certain tax offences. “An assertion that is material can never be a surplus. Surplus is something that is completely foreign and unworkable. If the excess is not grammatically corrected, or if it is incomprehensible and cannot be given any meaning, or if it is contradictory or repugnant to what has been previously asserted, the adversary can exploit it on a particular contradiction. If one party invokes an important issue with unnecessary detail about the circumstances and the essential and non-essential parts of a statement are so interconnected in nature that they cannot be separated, the other party may include the entire alleged issue in its course. And since it is a permanent rule that evidence must be consistent with the allegations, it follows that the party who has unnecessarily invoked such an issue in this manner is required to prove it and must therefore bear an increased burden of proof and run a greater risk of failure at trial. If, for example, he claims to justify the removal of damage to livestock, in which case it is sufficient to claim that they caused damage to his property, he must declare a seizure in royalty that is exceeded, must prove a seizure in costs.
“In the proceedings, surplus means a matter that is not necessary or relevant to the case.” « By excess, we mean claims of matter which are completely foreign and scandalous to the case. » In the pleadings, the term “surplus” refers to claims that are not relevant to the plea. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may, on application, withdraw from the pleadings any excess, such as an inadequate defence or an intangible issue. Excess is language contained in advocacy that is unnecessary or irrelevant. For example, in an indictment, excess is the assertion of facts or circumstances that are not a necessary element of the crime. Surpluses may be removed from indictments upon request and may do so to eliminate intangible or irrelevant allegations that may be prejudicial if the indictment is read to the jury. Although an accused may remove an excess from the indictment, the decision is left to the discretion of the court. In fact, according to Rule 7(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a court may withdraw surplus from the indictment or information.” Nevertheless, it was said that such requests were rarely accepted, as the courts generally maintained a policy of “refraining from falsifying accusations”. “In law, (excess) means the matter contained in an instrument extraneous to the subject matter; the subject-matter of an act which is not necessary in its view but which does not affect its validity; anything irrelevant, scandalous, superfluous or useless. “The surplus is where there is something above or in excess.
In advocacy, excess is the accusation of unnecessary substances and is prohibited. “The surplus rule, developed by the courts for many years, is succinctly worded as follows …: if the individual document, whether provided in its original form or provided subsequently, is not essential to the justification of the offence, it is treated as a surplus, that is, as unnecessary and does not need to be proved.” A term used in the analysis of legal documents and pleadings to refer to formulations or statements that have no legal effect and can therefore be ignored. EXCESS, advocacy. A superfluous and useless determination of matter, which is completely alien and scandalous to matter. 2. In general surplusagium non nocet, according to the useful maxim per useless non vitiatur; So if a man mentions in his statement, his plea &c. something that needs not be said, but the thing presented is grammatically correct and perfectly reasonable, Demurrer cannot take advantage of it. Com. Dig. Pleader, C 28, E 2; 1 salk. 325; 4 East, 400; Gilb.
P. Box 131; Ferry. Blood type. Pleas in court, 1, 4; Co. Litt. 303, b; 2 Saund. 306, No. 14; 5 East 444; 1 puppy. Pl. 282; Lawes on pl. 63; 7 John.
462; 3 days, 472; 2 Mass. R. 283; 13 John. 80. 3. If the plaintiff demonstrates by an unnecessary allegation that he has no cause of action, the defendant may refuse to do so. Com. Dig. pleading, c. 29; Ferry. From. Pleadings, 1, 4; see 2 East, 451; 4 East, 400; Dougl.
667; 2 Bl. Rep. 842; 3 Cranch, p. 193; 2 Dall. 300; 1 Wash. R. 257. 4. If the excess is not grammatically corrected, or if it is incomprehensible and cannot be given any meaning, or if it contradicts or repels what has been previously affirmed, the adversary can exploit it in a special way.
Gilb. P. Box 132; Lewes at pl. 64. (5) If a party invokes a material fact with unnecessary detail about the circumstances and the essential and non-essential elements of a statement are so interconnected in nature that they cannot be separated, the other party may include the entire alleged issue in its course. And since it is a permanent rule that evidence must be consistent with the allegations, it follows that the party who has unnecessarily invoked such an issue in this manner is required to prove it and must therefore bear an increased burden of proof and run a greater risk of failure at trial. If, for example, he claims to justify the removal of damage to livestock, in which case it is sufficient to claim that they caused damage to his property, he must declare a seizure in royalty that is exceeded, must prove a seizure in costs. dyer, 365; 2 Saund.
206, a, note 22 Steph. pl. 261, 262; 1 Smith`s leadership. Case 328, note 1 green. Ev. § 51 1 Chit. Pl. 524, 525; U. S. Dig. Memoir, VII.
c. Foreign bodies; scandalous, superfluous or useless. “Surplus. A surplus and means in law an addition of more than the needs, which is sometimes the cause of a decrease in the introductory claim, but in the pleadings it is often absolutely null and void, and the rest of the plea will remain good. A simple example would be a detailed physical description of a defendant. In general surplusagium non nocet, according to the useful maxim per inutile non vitiatur; So if a man mentions something in his statement, plea, etc., it does not need to be said, but the question presented is grammatically correct and perfectly reasonable, Demurrer cannot take advantage of it. In the C.J.S., American Encyclopedia of Law, 1953: If the plaintiff demonstrates by an unnecessary claim that he has no cause of action, the defendant may growl. The second edition of Stroud`s Judicial Dictionary (1903), page 1994: SURPLUSAGE, comptes. A higher payment than the accountant`s fee.
“But in most cases, such an issue will not harm advocacy, but will be ignored.” It is foreseeable that non-legal litigants or inexperienced lawyers will succumb to the temptation to include in their pleadings more than the essential factual allegations, the reference to the relevant law and the remedies they seek, and to file pleadings before the Court of Justice characterised by inappropriate allegations such as too much detail, information on secondary events, hearsay, etc. Also in the criminal law context, where oral arguments take the form of an indictment or information, Lamer J. of the Supreme Court of Canada in Vézina and Côté v. R.:.