260 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1958), 15793, Haili v. United States
|Citation:||260 F.2d 744|
|Party Name:||Germaine M. HAILI, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||October 14, 1958|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Yasutaka Fukushima, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellant.
Louis B. Blissard, U.S. Atty., E. C. Crumpacker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellee.
Before MATHEWS, POPE and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.
POPE, Circuit Judge.
The appellant was convicted under a count of an indictment which charged that he corruptly obstructed and impeded the due administration of justice with respect to the terms and conditions of the probation of one Harriet Elizabeth Bruce, a defendant in a certain criminal cause in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, all in violation of § 1503, Title 18, U.S.C.A. 1
The evidence in the case disclosed that Mrs. Bruce had been convicted of acquiring and obtaining marijuana cigarettes without payment of the transfer tax required
by law. The sentence imposed was suspended and she was placed on probation for a period of three years. One of the special conditions of probation was that she was to associate only with persons approved by the probation officer. The probation officer explicitly directed her to keep away from and have nothing to do with the appellant who himself had been convicted and served a sentence for a narcotics offense.
Appellant knew of the terms of the probation and knew that Mrs. Bruce had been prohibited from having anything to do with him but nevertheless the appellant did see and associate with her during the period when she was prohibited from having anything to do with him. He visited her at her home, accompanied her to places of entertainment, took her to and from the airport when she traveled, and generally kept regular company with her. In consequence of this, when the probation officer learned of it he moved to revoke Mrs. Bruce's probation and accordingly the suspension of sentence was set aside and she was committed for imprisonment for a period of two years.
The court instructed the jury that, 'The due administration of justice, as used in the criminal statute, and in Count II, includes the supervision of the terms and conditions of the probation of the Court's probationers by the Court through its probation officer.' It was upon this theory that the case was allowed to go to the jury and all motions for acquittal were rejected and the verdict of guilty against the appellant allowed to stand.
Among the contentions made here is one that the conduct of the appellant was not...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP