charged with

USAGE SUMMARY

"charged with" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when someone has been accused of something. For example: "The suspect was charged with grand larceny."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

He was charged with incivility.

The New Yorker

They were charged with perjury.

The New York Times

He was charged with rape.

The New York Times

He's charged with double manslaughter.

Independent

He was charged with arson.

The New York Times

Willingham was charged with murder.

The New Yorker

Will he charged with corruption?

The New Yorker

He was never charged with a crime.

The New York Times

She was never charged with a crime.

The New York Times

Mr. Brown was charged with manslaughter.

The New York Times

He was also charged with her murder.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "charged with", ensure clarity about the specific crime or offense. Provide context to avoid ambiguity.

Common error

Avoid using "charged with" when you mean simply "responsible for". "Charged with" implies a formal accusation, not just a general duty.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "charged with" functions primarily as a passive verb phrase. It indicates that someone is the recipient of a formal accusation, typically within a legal context. As confirmed by Ludwig, this phrase is a standard and accepted way to express the act of being formally accused of an offense.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

98%

Wiki

1%

Formal & Business

1%

Less common in

Science

0%

Academia

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "charged with" is a widely used and grammatically correct way to express that someone has been formally accused of a crime or offense. According to Ludwig, its primary function is to convey information about legal accusations, commonly found in news and media contexts. When using "charged with", ensure you're referring to a formal accusation and that you provide sufficient context for clarity. While alternatives like "accused of" and "indicted for" exist, "charged with" remains a direct and effective choice for communicating this specific concept.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

accused of

This alternative directly states the act of accusing someone, placing emphasis on the accuser.

indicted for

This alternative is more formal and specific to legal contexts, referring to a formal accusation by a grand jury.

facing allegations of

This emphasizes that the charges are still allegations and haven't been proven.

held accountable for

This focuses on responsibility and the expectation of answering for one's actions.

subject to accusations of

This highlights the state of being under accusation, focusing on the process rather than the outcome.

implicated in

This suggests involvement in something, often a crime or wrongdoing, but doesn't necessarily denote a formal charge.

tasked with

This shifts the meaning to assigning responsibility or duty rather than accusation, implying a job or duty to fulfill.

liable for

This implies legal responsibility, often in a financial or contractual sense.

entrusted with

This suggests giving someone responsibility with a sense of trust or confidence, unlike accusation.

assigned to

This conveys the idea of responsibility or duty without any implication of wrongdoing or accusation.

FAQs

How is "charged with" used in a legal context?

In law, "charged with" means formally accused of a crime under the legal system. It doesn't imply guilt, but signifies the start of legal proceedings.

What's the difference between "accused of" and "charged with"?

"Accused of" implies someone claims someone else did something wrong, while "charged with" means formal legal charges have been filed.

Can "charged with" be used outside of legal contexts?

While primarily legal, "charged with" can be used metaphorically to indicate being burdened with a difficult task or responsibility in non-legal settings. However, it's best to use it carefully outside legal settings to avoid confusion.

What are some alternatives to "charged with"?

Depending on the context, you could use alternatives like "indicted for" (in a legal context), "tasked with" (if it's a responsibility), or "held accountable for" (if it's about responsibility for actions).