United States v. Healy
| Decision Date | 03 February 1913 |
| Docket Number | 239. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HEALY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
James W. Freeman, U.S. Atty., and S. C. Ford, Asst. U.S. Atty both of Helena, Mont.
M. F Canning and P. E. Geagan, both of Butte, Mont., for defendant.
In this case the court, of its own motion, vacates the sentence and judgment, sets aside the verdict, and discharges the defendant. The conviction was for a felony, an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor to an Indian, contrary to Act Jan. 30 1897, c. 109, 29 Stat. 506. The evidence was that the sale was solicited from defendant, in the ordinary course of his trade of retail liquor dealer in the city of Butte, by said Indian, who therein was in the service of government officers as a decoy. It was claimed that there was suspicion that defendant was making like unlawful sales, and it was sought to entrap him. In this instance defendant was ignorant that the purchaser was an Indian, and nothing in the latter's dress, speech, manner, or appearance served to put him on inquiry therein; the Indian approximating those not Indians. The court instructed the jury that in view of the evidence its duty was to convict, and the jury returned a verdict accordingly.
After further consideration, I am persuaded a conviction under such circumstances is unjust and contrary to public policy. Hence, the conviction having been at this term, the judgment being 'in the breast of the court,' and the court having full power over it, the order vacating the same. See Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 167, 21 L.Ed. 872.
Decoys are permissible to entrap criminals, but not to create them to present opportunity to those having intent to or willing to commit crime, but not to ensnare the law-abiding in unconscious offending. Where a statute, as here, makes an act a crime regardless of the actor's intent or knowledge, ignorance of fact is no excuse if the act be done voluntarily; but when done upon solicitation by the government's instrument to that end ignorance of fact stamps the act as involuntary, and excuses, or at least estops the government from a conviction. In the former case the actor is bound to know the facts, and acts at his peril. In the latter case he is relieved of the obligation by the government's invitation, which is of the nature of fraudulent concealment and deceit, and, if not consent, yet doth work an estoppel. Though the seller has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorrells v. United States
...liquor to an Indian in violation of law, made a sale to an Indian disguised so as to mislead the accused as to his identity. U. S. v. Healy (D. C.) 202 F. 349; Voves v. U. S. (C. C. A. 7th) 249 F. 191. In such case the accused lacked the intent to violate the law, and was placed in the posi......
-
Sorrells v. United States
...is made to the case of a sale of liquor to an Indian who was disguised so as to mislead the accused as to his identity. United States v. Healy (D.C.) 202 F. 349; Voves v. United States (C.C.A.) 249 F. 191. In the second class are found cases such as those of larceny or rape where want of co......
-
O'BRIEN v. United States
...v. U. S., 240 F. 60 (C. C. A. Cal.); Woo Wai v. U. S., 223 F. 412 (C. C. A. 9); U. S. v. Thompson, 202 F. 346 (D. C. Cal.); U. S. v. Healy, 202 F. 349 (D. C. Mont.); Cline v. U. S., 20 F.(2d) 494 (C. C. A. 8). B. State Court Decisions: State v. Mantis, 32 Idaho, 724, 187 P. 268; State v. Mc......
-
State v. Kirkbride
...relies on several of these cases, including Peterson v. U.S. 255 F. 433; 166 C.C.A. 509; Yick v. U.S. 240 F. 60; 153 C.C.A. 96; U.S. v. Healy, 202 F. 349; Butts v. U.S. 273 F. 35, 18 A. L. R. 143. These other cases cited in the brief are easily distinguishable from the case at bar, though l......