412 F.2d 657 (9th Cir. 1969), 23136, Charron v. United States

Docket Nº:23136.
Citation:412 F.2d 657
Party Name:Cyril CHARRON, Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee.
Case Date:June 09, 1969
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 657

412 F.2d 657 (9th Cir. 1969)

Cyril CHARRON, Appellant,


The UNITED STATES, Appellee.

No. 23136.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 9, 1969

Page 658

Alan A. McDonald (argued), of Halverson, Applegate & McDonald, Yakima, Wash., for appellant.

Dean C. Smith (argued), U.S. Atty., Smithmoore P. Myers, U.S. Atty., Spokane, Wash., Richard L. Wiehl, Asst. U.S. Atty., Yakima, Wash., for appellee.

Before HAMLIN, ELY and CARTER, Circuit Judges.

HAMLIN, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Cyril Charron was convicted after a jury trial in the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (inducing a person to travel in interstate commerce in the execution of a fraudulent scheme for obtaining money by false pretenses). 1 Jurisdiction over his timely appeal is lodged in this court under 28 U.S.C.§ 1291.

The evidence need not be set out in detail; viewing it as we must in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence was clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict. The record shows that appellant and another person, Bartland, pursuant to a scheme devised in 1963, induced the male complaining witness to travel from Mexico City, Mexico, to his home in the state of Washington, passing through the state of Oregon en route to and from Mexico City. The victim traveled to Washington to obtain the sum of $50,000, which on his return to Mexico he was induced to hand over to the appellant and Bartland because of their false statements and pretenses. The scheme was a variation on what has long been known as the 'pigeon drop.' Approximately five years after the conclusion of the scheme the appellant was arrested by agents of the United States Government in Detroit, Michigan, after a plane on which the appellant was traveling from Mexico City to Toronto, Canada, made a stop in that city. From Detroit he was brought to Washington, where the trial resulting in the conviction was held.

The appellant in his brief sets out five issues for review, as follows:

'(1) Did the Government fail to charge or prove the commission of a crime under 18 U.S.C. 2314, where admittedly all of the overt acts alleged to have been committed by appellant occurred beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States? ' (2) Did the Government's mode of acquiring custody and personal jurisdiction of appellant offend constitutional guarantees? '(3) Was the appellant deprived of a fair trial by the conduct, participation and demeanor of the trial judge? ' (4) Did the trial court err in the admission of certain evidence violating the hearsay rule?

Page 659

'(5) Did the trial court err in the refusal to give certain instructions requested by the appellant?'

Having carefully examined all of the appellant's contentions, we find no merit in them, and we consequently affirm the conviction.

It is undisputed that the appellant was at no time physically in the United States while perpetrating the fraudulent scheme, and that while the other paragraphs of section 2314 refer to...

To continue reading