Crouch v. United States

• Decision Date: 08 May 1924
• Docket Number: 3963.
• Citation: 298 F. 437
• Parties: CROUCH v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

298 F. 437

CROUCH v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3963.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 8, 1924

Henry A. Behrendt, of Detroit, Mich. (Milton A. Behrendt, of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Frederic L. Eaton, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Detroit, Mich. (Earl J. Davis U.S. Atty., of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for the United States.

Before DENISON, MACK, and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges.

MACK Circuit Judge.

The defendant, with a confederate, was engaged in operating what is known as a 'banking crap game.' They pasted together genuine Federal Reserve notes of different denominations. For example, they would paste a $20 note and a $5 note, so that, looked at from one side, it appeared to be a $5 bill, while, looked at from the other side, it appeared to be a $20 bill. Similarly they pasted together $50 and $10 notes. The alleged practice was for the defendant to secure a victim and to act as his banker, handling his money, while the confederate would make a bet, placing on the table one of the doctored bills, which would be manipulated so as to cheat the victim.

The defendant was found guilty on three counts, the first and second counts being under section 148 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. Sec. 10318) ^[1] for altering Federal Reserve notes with intent to defraud certain persons, and the third count being under section 151 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. Sec 10321) ^[2] for having in his possession an altered $50 Federal Reserve note, with intent to pass the same and to defraud. The defendant was fined $300 and sentenced to be imprisoned three years.

It is urged that the defendant did not alter any obligation or other security of the United States within the meaning of the provisions of the Criminal Code, inasmuch as each note used was genuine and capable of immediate restoration to its original form. Alteration of a genuine instrument is not however, limited to a permanent change. While the two notes remain pasted together, so as to appear to be a single note, each of them is altered; its identity as a genuine $5 or $20 or $50 note is temporarily destroyed; none the less so because, on an examination, the change would be at once apparent.

Further, it is contended that there was no fraud on the government, inasmuch as the government's obligation was not, and was not intended to be, in any way increased. The statute, however, does not specify the United States as the party intended to be defrauded. As counterfeiting, forgery, or alteration, and the fraudulent purposes which they aim to further, may injuriously affect, not only the government, but also innocent third parties, the broad statutory requirement of an intent to defraud is not to be restricted to a fraud against the government. A use with intent to defraud any person is within that statutory inhibition. Therefore, too, it is unnecessary that the obligation of the government be attempted or purported to be increased or changed. Cf. U.S. v. Sacks, 257 U.S. 37, 42 Sup.Ct. 38, 66 L.Ed. 118; U.S. v. Janowitz, 257 U.S. 42, 42 Sup.Ct. 40, 66 L.Ed. 120. The evidence fully supports a conviction under section 148.

Each of the first two counts charges, not merely the fact, but the specific manner, of alteration of two notes, by pasting together a part of each-- the front of one and the back of another. If such placing together be wrongly denominated 'alteration,' the first and second counts and the sentence thereunder are nevertheless sustainable under section 162 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. Sec. 10332). ^[3] The front of one note and the back of another are different parts thereof, even though not physically detached from the entire note

Whether or not the charge in the third count under section 151-- possession with intent not only to defraud, but to pass an altered note-- is sustained by this evidence, need not be...