352 U.S. 407 (1957), 289, United States v. Turley

• Citation: 352 U.S. 407, 77 S.Ct. 397, 1 L.Ed.2d 430
• Party Name: United States v. Turley
• Case Date: February 25, 1957
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Page 407

352 U.S. 407 (1957)

77 S.Ct. 397, 1 L.Ed.2d 430

United States

v.

Turley

No. 289

United States Supreme Court

Feb. 25, 1957

Argued January 24, 1957

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Syllabus

In the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312, which makes it a federal crime to transport in interstate or foreign commerce a motor vehicle "knowing the same to have been stolen," the word "stolon" is not limited to takings which amount to common law larceny, but it includes all takings of motor vehicles with a criminal intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership. Pp. 408-417.

(a) In the absence of a plain indication of an intent to incorporate diverse state laws into a federal criminal statute, the meaning of the federal statute should not be dependent on state law. P. 411.

(b) Where a federal criminal statute uses a common law term of established meaning without otherwise defining it, the general practice is to give that term its common law meaning; but "stolen" has no accepted common law meaning. Pp. 411-412.

(c) In these circumstances, the word "stolen" should be given a meaning consistent with the context in which it appears and the purpose of the legislation. Pp. 412-413.

(d) In the light of the purpose of the Act and its legislative history, the word "stolen" should not be interpreted eo as to limit it to situations which at common law would be considered larceny, but should be interpreted to include all takings with a criminal intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership. Pp. 413-417.

(e) A different result is not required by the fact that, after 1948, the Department of Justice proposed various clarifying amendments to the Act, and several of these amendments have passed one House of Congress without coming to a vote in the other. P. 415, n. 14.

141 F.Supp. 527 reversed and remanded.

Page 408

BURTON, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the meaning of the word "stolen" in the following provision of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, commonly known as the Dyer Act:

Whoever transports in interstate or foreign commerce a motor vehicle or aircraft, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.¹

[77 S.Ct. 398] The issue before us is whether the meaning of the word "stolen," as used in this provision, is limited to a taking which amounts to common law larceny, or whether it includes an embezzlement or other felonious taking with intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership. For the reasons hereafter stated, we accept the broader interpretation.

In 1956, an information based on this section was filed against James Vernon Turley in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. It charged that Turley, in South Carolina, lawfully obtained possession of an automobile from its owner for the purpose of driving certain of their friends to the homes of the latter in South Carolina, but that, without permission of the owner and with intent to steal the automobile, Turley

Page 409

converted it to his own use and unlawfully transported it in interstate commerce to Baltimore, Maryland, where he sold it without permission of the owner.² The information thus charged Turley with transporting the automobile in interstate commerce knowing it to have been obtained by embezzlement, rather than by common law larceny.

Counsel appointed for Turley moved to dismiss the information on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States. He contended that the word "stolen" as used in the Act referred only to takings which constitute common law larceny, and that the acts charged did not. The District Court agreed, and dismissed the information. 141 F.Supp. 527. The United States concedes that the facts alleged in the information do not constitute common law larceny, but disputes the holding that a motor vehicle obtained by embezzlement is not "stolen" within the meaning of the Act. The Government appealed directly

Page 410

to this Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 because the dismissal was based upon a construction of the statute upon which the information was founded. We noted probable jurisdiction. 352 U.S. 816.

Decisions involving the meaning of "stolen" as used in the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act did not arise frequently until comparatively recently. Two of the earlier cases interpreted "stolen" as meaning statutory larceny as defined by the State in which the taking occurred.³ The later decisions rejected that interpretation, but divided on whether to [77 S.Ct. 399] give "stolen" a uniformly narrow meaning restricted to common law larceny or a uniformly broader meaning inclusive of embezzlement and other felonious takings with intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership.⁴ The Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits favored the narrow definition,⁵ while the Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits favored

Page 411

the broader one.⁶ We agree that, in the absence of a plain indication of an intent to incorporate diverse state laws into a federal criminal statute, the meaning of the federal statute should not be dependent on state law. See Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101, 104 (1943); United States v. Handler, 142 F.2d 351, 354.

We recognize that, where a federal criminal statute uses a common law term of established meaning without otherwise defining it, the general practice is to give that term its common law meaning.⁷ But "stolen" (or "stealing") has no accepted common law meaning. On this point, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently said:

But, while "stolen" is constantly identified with larceny, the term was never at common law equated or

Page 412

exclusively dedicated to larceny. "Steal" (originally "stale") at first denoted in general usage a taking through secrecy, as implied in "stealth," or through stratagem, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Expanded through the years, it became the generic designation for dishonest acquisition, but it never lost its initial connotation. Nor, in law, is "steal" or "stolen" a word of art. Blackstone does not mention "steal" in defining larceny -- "the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another" -- or in expounding its several elements. IV Commentaries 229 et seq.

Boone v. United States, 235 F.2d 939, 940.

Webster's New International Dictionary [77 S.Ct. 400] (2d ed., 1953) likewise defines "stolen" as "[o]btained or accomplished by theft, stealth, or craft. . . ." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1951) states that "steal" "may denote the criminal taking of personal property either by larceny, embezzlement, or false pretenses."⁸ Furthermore, "stolen" and "steal" have been used in federal criminal statutes, and the courts interpreting those words have declared that they do not have a necessary common law meaning coterminous with larceny and exclusive of other theft crimes.⁹ Freed from a common law meaning, we should

Page 413

give "stolen" the meaning consistent with the context in which it appears.

That criminal statutes are to be construed strictly is a proposition which calls for the citation of no authority. But this does not mean that every criminal statute must be given the narrowest possible meaning in complete disregard of the purpose of the legislature.

United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503, 509-510 (1955); see also United States v. Sullivan, 332 U.S. 689, 693-694 (1948).

It is, therefore, appropriate to consider the purpose of the Act and to gain what light we can from its legislative history.

By 1919, the law of most States against local theft had developed so as to include not only common law larceny, but embezzlement, false pretenses, larceny by trick, and other types of wrongful taking. The advent of the automobile, however, created a new problem with which the States found it difficult to deal. The automobile was uniquely suited to felonious taking, whether by larceny, embezzlement, or false pretenses. It was a valuable, salable article which itself supplied the means for speedy escape. "The automobile [became] the perfect chattel for modern large-scale theft."¹⁰ This challenge could be best

Page 414

met through use of the Federal Government's jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The need for federal action increased with the number, distribution, and speed of the motor vehicles until, by 1919, it became a necessity.¹¹ The result was the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act.

[77 S.Ct. 401] This background was reflected in the Committee Report on the bill, presented by its author and sponsor, Representative Dyer. H.R.Rep. No. 312, 66th Cong., 1st Sess. This report, entitled "Theft of Automobiles," pointed to the increasing number of automobile thefts, the resulting financial losses, and the increasing cost of automobile theft insurance. It asserted that state laws were inadequate to cope with the problem because the offenders evaded state officers by transporting the automobiles across state lines, where associates received and sold them. Throughout the legislative history, Congress used the word "stolen" as synonymous with "theft," a term generally considered to be broader than "common law larceny."¹² To be sure, the discussion referred to "larceny," but nothing was said about excluding other forms of "theft." The report stated the object of the Act in broad terms, primarily emphasizing the need for the exercise of federal powers.¹³ No mention is made of a purpose to

Page 415

distinguish between different forms of theft, as would be expected if the distinction had been intended.¹⁴

"Larceny" is also mentioned in Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432 (1925).¹⁵ This reference, [77 S.Ct. 402] however,...