Coltabellotta v. United States, 116.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 116.,116. |
| Citation | 45 F.2d 117 |
| Parties | COLTABELLOTTA v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Murry Boxer, of New York City (J. Sidney Bernstein, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Howard W. Ameli, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Herbert H. Kellogg, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.
Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
CHASE, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Reversal is sought on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support either count in the indictment and that the attitude of the trial court was prejudicial to the defendant.
The familiar doctrine that an appellate court will not reverse a judgment entered on a verdict of guilty, where the evidence, however contradicted, might still reasonably lead honest and impartial jurors to the conclusion that the defendant is, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty, and there is no error elsewhere, needs no elaboration here. All necessary to convict the defendant on the first count was proved by testimony directly to the facts except his intent in sending the girl from New York to New Jersey September 5th. This intent to cause her to be transported for immoral purposes across the state line must have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have been in his mind when he had her transported; for such a present intent is an indispensable ingredient of the crime charged. Alpert v. United States (C. C. A.) 12 F.(2d) 352; Drossos v. United States (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 833. And, of course, the burden was on the government to show it. Kelly v. United States (C. C. A.) 297 F. 212. Being nothing more tangible than a state of mind, the defendant's intent must of necessity remain his secret except only in so far as he disclosed it by speech or conduct. Although he denied any part in her going away and attempted to prove an alibi, the jury had the right to disbelieve him and his evidence and take the facts as disclosed by the government's evidence to be true. It had an equal right to make all reasonable deductions from the facts proved to determine his intent. What he is said to have said indicated no immoral purpose, but rather a desire to prepare for his action for divorce, but his acts, as so often is true, speak louder than words. He had had sexual intercourse with this girl in June; his power over her enabled him to take her without protest from Staten Island to Fortieth street and persuade her to write and give to him to mail a false letter calculated to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
La Page v. United States, 12863.
...in section 3, § 399, U.S.C.A., Title 18, while no such necessity exists in section 2, § 398, U.S.C.A. Title 18 (Coltabellotta v. United States, 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 117, 119; Blain v. United States, 8 Cir., 22 F.2d 393, 395) but the sections are distinct also irrespective of the common carrier f......
-
In Re Squires.
...transportation of the woman. Under § 399 as well as under § 400, such transportation must be by a common carrier, Coltabellota v. United States, 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 117, but § 398 is violated if there is interstate transportation for the prescribed purposes, by privately owned automobile. Sloan......
-
In re Edward J. Squires
... ... United ... States and one of the States, provided the act is one over ... which ... embezzlement from a national bank as in Commonwealth ... v. Barry, 116 Mass. 1; of a state and a national law ... against harboring slaves and ... by a common carrier, Coltabellotta v. United ... States, 45 F.2d 117, but § 398 is violated if there ... ...
-
Sink v. Cox, 12763.
...different offenses. Roark v. United States, 8 Cir., 17 F.2d 570; Blain v. United States, 8 Cir., 22 F.2d 393, 395; Coltabellotta v. United States, 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 117, 119; United States v. Saledonis, 2 Cir., 93 F.2d 302, 303; Hewitt v. United States, 8 Cir., 110 F.2d 1, It follows that in ......