was charged with

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was charged with" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in legal contexts to indicate that someone has been formally accused of a crime or offense. Example: "He was charged with theft after the investigation revealed his involvement in the crime."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Encyclopedias

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

He was charged with incivility.

The New Yorker

He was charged with rape.

The New York Times

He was charged with arson.

The New York Times

Willingham was charged with murder.

The New Yorker

Mr. Brown was charged with manslaughter.

The New York Times

Dreyfus was charged with betraying France.

The New Yorker

He was charged with second-degree murder.

The New York Times

The lieutenant was charged with a misdemeanor.

The New York Times

He was charged with promoting gambling.

The New York Times

Sayre was charged with aggravated assault.

The New York Times

Hanrahan was charged with a wild pitch.

The New York Times - Sports

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When reporting on legal matters, use "was charged with" to accurately convey that formal charges have been filed, avoiding speculation or assumptions of guilt.

Common error

Avoid using "was charged with" interchangeably with "was convicted of". The former indicates an accusation, while the latter confirms a guilty verdict.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was charged with" functions as a passive construction indicating that a subject has received a formal accusation of wrongdoing. Ludwig AI confirms this usage, highlighting its role in legal contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

75%

Wiki

12%

Encyclopedias

6%

Less common in

Science

2%

Formal & Business

2%

Reference

1%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "was charged with" is a frequently used phrase that indicates someone has been formally accused of a crime. As Ludwig AI confirms, this phrase is grammatically sound and typically appears in legal or news-related contexts. When using this phrase, it's essential to differentiate between being charged and being convicted, as they represent different stages in the legal process. Alternatives include phrases like "was accused of" or "faced accusations of", depending on the specific nuance you wish to convey. The phrase is most commonly found in news and media sources, reflecting its role in reporting legal proceedings. Using this expression correctly ensures clarity and accuracy in your writing.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was accused of

Focuses directly on the accusation without necessarily implying formal charges.

was formally accused of

Emphasizes the official nature of the accusation.

faced accusations of

Highlights the experience of confronting allegations, emphasizing the process.

was indicted on

Implies a formal legal process with a grand jury involved.

was held responsible for

Highlights the imputation of responsibility for an event or action.

was held accountable for

Shifts the focus to responsibility and the need to answer for actions.

was alleged to have

Indicates an assertion without proof, often used in legal contexts before a verdict.

was blamed for

Suggests an attribution of fault or responsibility, often in a less formal setting.

was suspected of

Implies a belief of guilt without a formal accusation.

was booked on suspicion of

Refers to the police process of recording an arrest and the suspected offense.

FAQs

What does "was charged with" mean in a legal context?

In legal terms, "was charged with" means that someone has been formally accused of committing a crime. It's a step in the legal process that precedes a trial or conviction.

What can I say instead of "was charged with"?

You can use alternatives like "was accused of", "faced accusations of", or "was indicted on" depending on the context.

Which is correct, "was charged with" or "was convicted of"?

"Was charged with" indicates that someone has been accused of a crime, while "was convicted of" means they have been found guilty in a court of law. They have very different meanings.

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

"Was charged with" implies a formal accusation by legal authorities, whereas "was suspected of" indicates a belief or hunch without any formal charges being filed.