Stephens v. United States
| Decision Date | 13 August 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21526.,21526. |
| Citation | 347 F.2d 722 |
| Parties | David Clifton STEPHENS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Thomas G. Sharpe, Brownsville, Percy Foreman, Houston, Tex., for appellant.
Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., William A. Jackson, Fred L. Hartman, James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., and Robert M. Talcott, Atty. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and KILKENNY,* District Judge.
Appellant was the County Office Manager in Brazoria County, Texas, of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASC), established under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. He was tried before a jury and convicted on four counts, one of accepting a bribe in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 202, and three of conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S. C. § 371. Appellant was sentenced to 3 years and fined $7,500 on the bribery count and sentenced to 5 years jointly on the three conspiracy counts, consecutive to the bribery sentence, and fined $10,000 jointly on the conspiracy counts. This is an appeal from that judgment.
The bribery count upon which Appellant was convicted charges, in substance, that he, acting in his official capacity as ASC County Office Manager, accepted $3,740 in return for transferring and allocating a rice acreage allotment to the payer in violation of the federal acreage allotment statutes and regulations.
The conspiracy counts upon which Appellant was convicted are as follows: Count 22 charges a conspiracy involving Appellant, Laurence Gene Newman and Pearl Davis Bellard, which operated only in Brazoria County. Appellant was found to have dealt in wholly fictitious rice allotments, presenting Newman and Bellard as farmers who held allotments, although they did not, and allowing others the use of their fictitious "acreage allotments" for a given sum of money. Appellant, in his capacity as ASC County Office Manager simply allowed rice acreage to be planted in excess of the true allotment for the county through the use of these fictitious "allotments", in exchange for cash. This count charges him with defrauding the United States of his services as County Office Manager.
Count 23 charges a similar scheme except that it involved purported "transfers" of allotments from farmers in Brazoria County to farmers in Jackson County. Newman again posed as a farmer holding an allotment. Norman E. Scaff, the ASC County Office Manager for Jackson County, together with Appellant represented to Jackson County farmers that allotments were available for transfer from Brazoria County. The purported "transfers" would be effected through false papers, sometimes with forged signatures of actual Brazoria County farmers, in return for a cash payment. This count charges Appellant with defrauding the United States of his services and those of Scaff.
Count 24 charges an unlawful agreement between Appellant, Carl Edward Lively, ASC County Office Manager for Matagorda County, and one Killough. While Killough's allotment was being farmed in Brazoria County for the period in question, Appellant and Lively allowed a purported "transfer" of it to Matagorda County upon payment of cash. This count charges Appellant with defrauding the United States of his services and those of Lively.
Appellant Stephens is the sole defendant in the case, Scaff and Lively both having died. He asserts some 15 errors on this appeal.
The main thrust of Appellant's argument is that the indictment is insufficient and the jury charge erroneous because they do not detail the duties of Appellant as ASC County Office Manager and specifically describe how he violated those duties. The fallacy in this position, as the Government points out, is that he is not charged with a violation of the rice acreage allotment statutes or regulations, but with receiving a bribe and conspiring to defraud the United States. As to the elements of the offenses charged under the bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 202, and the conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, the indictment and jury charge are clearly correct, specific, and sufficiently detailed.
On the bribery count the indictment specifies what Appellant received, when he received it, and from whom he received it. It describes his official...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Watson
...or not to furnish the jury with a written copy of the instructions was a matter of discretion for the trial court. Stephens v. United States, 347 F.2d 722, 725 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 932, 86 S.Ct. 324, 15 L.Ed.2d 343 (1965); McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir.......
-
U.S. v. Holman
...his instructions to the jury room. Submission of written instructions is within the sound discretion of the court. Stephens v. United States, 347 F.2d 722, 725 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 382 U.S. 932, 86 S.Ct. 324, 15 L.Ed.2d 343 (1965); United States v. Hill, 589 F.2d 1344, 1352 (8th Cir. 19......
-
U.S. v. Pommerening, s. 73-1937
...and is correct, specific and sufficiently detailed to enable appellants to adequately prepare their defense. See Stephens v. United States, 347 F.2d 722 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. den'd, 382 U.S. 932, 86 S.Ct. 324, 15 L.Ed.2d Appellants also attack the sufficiency of the perjury counts because ......
-
U.S. v. Acosta, 84-1205
...determined by the sound discretion of the trial judge. See United States v. Neiss, 684 F.2d 570, 572 (8th Cir.1982); Stephens v. United States, 347 F.2d 722, 725 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 932, 86 S.Ct. 324, 15 L.Ed.2d 343 (1965). Thus, there is no error in the district court's refu......