Baas v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 5255.,5255. |
| Citation | 25 F.2d 294 |
| Parties | BAAS et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Hugh M. Wilkinson and Henry Fallon, both of New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs in error.
Wayne G. Borah, U. S. Atty., and Edmond E. Talbot, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New Orleans, La.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
Appellants were convicted of violating section 32, United States Criminal Code (18 USCA § 76), on an indictment which, omitting jurisdictional and other formal averments, charges that they "did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, feloniously and falsely assume and pretend each of them to be an officer and employee of the government of the United States, and to be acting under the authority of the United States, to wit, officers and employees of the Bureau of Prohibition, namely, federal prohibition officers, with the intent then and there to defraud one Paul Stropolo of the sum of one hundred and fifty ($150.00) dollars."
Error is assigned to the overruling of a demurrer to the indictment and of a motion in arrest of judgment on the same grounds.
Section 32 of the Criminal Code is as follows:
"Whoever, with intent to defraud either the United States or any person, shall falsely assume or pretend to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States, or any department, or any officer of the government thereof, and shall take upon himself to act as such, or shall in such pretended character demand or obtain from any person or from the United States, or any department, or any officer of the government thereof, any money, paper, document, or other valuable thing, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
The statute creates two offenses. Briefly stated, they are: First, with intent to defraud, falsely pretending to be an officer or employee of the United States, and taking it upon himself to act as such; second, with the same intent and pretense, demanding or obtaining something of value. Merely falsely pretending to be an officer or employee of the United States with intent to defraud is not enough. An overt act is necessary to complete either offense. U. S. v. Barnow, 239 U. S. 74, 36 S. Ct. 19, 60 L. Ed. 155.
In charging a statutory offense, it is usually sufficient to track the statute provided doing so sets forth every element of the offense and the indictment alleges enough to advise the accused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ekberg v. United States
...describes two italics added separate and distinct offenses". Pierce v. United States, 6 Cir., 1936, 86 F.2d 949, 951; Baas v. United States, 5 Cir., 1928, 25 F.2d 294; Graham v. Squier, 9 Cir., 1944, 145 F.2d 348, 349; Elliott v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 1940, 110 F.2d 389, 390. And see United St......
-
United States v. Ferris, 22-50117
...of the United States with intent to defraud is not enough. An overt act is necessary to complete either offense." Baas v. United States , 25 F.2d 294, 294 (5th Cir. 1928).First, we address Ferris's argument that the district court reversibly erred in adopting the Government's jury charge—in......
-
Dickson v. United States
...the exercise of its sound judicial discretion in declining to permit that to be done. I would affirm the judgments. 1 Baas v. United States, 5 Cir., 25 F.2d 294; Ekberg v. United States, 1 Cir., 167 F.2d 380; United States v. Barnow, 239 U.S. 74, 36 S.Ct. 19, 60 L.Ed. 2 Banning v. United St......
-
Kane v. United States, 11903.
...but with reasonable certainty and directness. United States v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483, 8 S.Ct. 571, 31 L.Ed. 516; Baas v. United States, 5 Cir., 25 F.2d 294. And so, it may be that an indictment under Section 32, which does not allege an intent to defraud, in fairly specific terms, will be hel......