United States v. Fields, 902

Decision Date05 September 1972
Docket Number903,Dockets 72-1325,72-1326.,No. 902,902
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Matthew FIELDS and William Lee Hamilton, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Gavin W. Scotti, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Robert A. Morse, U.S. Atty., E. D. N.Y.; David G. Trager, Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Pierce Gerety, Jr., New York City (Robert Kasanof, The Legal Aid Society, New York City, on the brief), for appellant Fields.

Richard I. Rosenkrantz, Brooklyn, N.Y., submitted for appellant Hamilton.

Before FEINBERG, MULLIGAN and OAKES, Circuit Judges.

FEINBERG, Circuit Judge:

James Matthew Fields and William Lee Hamilton appeal from their conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, after a jury trial before Mark A. Costantino, J., on various counts all having to do with the interstate transportation of a stolen tractor trailer containing a shipment of beef. Both appellants were convicted of unlawfully receiving and possessing the trailer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659, and of conspiring to violate that statute. 18 U.S.C. § 371. Fields was also found guilty of transporting in interstate commerce goods which he knew had been stolen. 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Fields received a four-year concurrent sentence on each count. Hamilton received concurrent five-year sentences. Because we find that the judge committed plain error in his charge, we must reverse for a new trial.

In discussing the alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 659, the judge first read the indictment to the jury. This charged that both defendants, among other things, "did unlawfully receive and possess" the trailer, which contained stolen goods that both defendants "knew had been stolen." The judge went on to say that:

In addition, the government need not prove that the defendant actually knew that it was stolen property. If the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, tends to prove knowledge of the contents and also of the trailer itself being stolen, that would be sufficient. That is only sufficient again if you apply the rule—and I will keep repeating this because it\'s necessary to do so—of beyond a reasonable doubt.

This charge on an essential element of the crime—a defendant's knowledge that the goods were stolen—was inadequate and misleading. Contrary to the judge's instructions, the Government did have to prove that the defendants "actually knew" that the beef was stolen property. See United States v. Massarotti, 462 F.2d 1328 (2d Cir.1972); United States v. Nitti, 444 F.2d 1056, 1059 (7th Cir.1971). And it was not "sufficient" if the evidence only "tended" to prove such knowledge. We realize that the judge may have been attempting to distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence, or perhaps between participating in the theft of the goods or directly witnessing the theft and merely having knowledge of a theft. Only the latter, provable by circumstantial evidence, is required for conviction. But the instruction, apparently given extemporaneously, did not come out that way and was obviously confusing at best. Moreover, the judge never defined "knowledge" again although he referred to this element of the crime in explaining the remaining counts of the indictment.

In addition, the judge charged the wrong portion of section 659. In explaining the crime charged in the first count, the court read from the first paragraph of section 659. This deals with the unlawful taking of goods, but defendants were not charged with that crime. They were charged with unlawfully receiving and possessing stolen goods. This crime is defined in the second paragraph of section 659, which the judge did not read. Similarly, in explaining the conspiracy count the judge told the jury that the charge was that defendants had conspired to "take this property" whereas the indictment charged conspiracy to "receive and possess" the stolen goods. In addition, the court did not explain the additional degree of knowledge required for a conviction of conspiracy to violate section 659, i. e., that the Government must prove not only the defendants knew the goods were stolen but also that they knew the goods were stolen from interstate commerce. See United States v. Vilhotti, 452 F.2d 1186, 1189-90 (2d Cir.1971), and cases there cited.

The Government makes a manful effort to minimize the effect of these errors but its only argument of any merit is that none of the errors was called to the attention of the trial judge by defense counsel. This is, incredibly, accurate.1 Nonetheless, we think that the cumulative effect of the errors in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • State v. Gabriel
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 13, 1984
    ...Natale, 526 F.2d 1160, 1167 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 950, 96 S.Ct. 1724, 48 L.Ed.2d 193 (1976), citing United States v. Fields, 466 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir.1972). Of course, any such error is not cured just because an appellate court is satisfied after the fact of conviction that......
  • State v. Kurvin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 30, 1982
    ...right); United States v. Clark, supra (misleading instruction on possession of narcotics with intent to distribute); United States v. Fields, 466 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1972) (incorrectly charging that proof of actual knowledge that property was stolen was unnecessary to convict on charge of rec......
  • United States v. Natale
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • November 28, 1975
    ...they are entitled, therefore, to a new trial. Cases such as United States v. Howard, 506 F.2d 1131 (2d Cir.1974), and United States v. Fields, 466 F.2d 119 (2d Cir.1972), have reestablished that failure to charge each separate element of an offense may be plain error. Such "errors go direct......
  • U.S. v. Provenzano
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • August 21, 1979
    ...of a written statement of reasons. United States v. Manarite, 430 F.2d 656, 657 (2d Cir. 1970) (per curiam); United States v. Fields, 466 F.2d 119, 121 n.3 (2d Cir. 1972).6 The trial judge cited the following decisions: United States v. Louie, 289 F.Supp. 850 (N.D.Cal.1968); United States v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT