Cucchia v. United States
| Citation | 17 F.2d 86 |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 4821.,4821. |
| Parties | CUCCHIA et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Elmo Johnson and Chas. G. Dibrell, both of Galveston, Tex., for plaintiffs in error.
H. M. Holden, U. S. Atty., of Houston, Tex. (R. F. Wiseheart and Howell Ward, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Houston, Tex., on the brief), for the United States.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
Cucchia and Megna were convicted, under section 39 of the Criminal Code,1 of offering and giving a bribe to two prohibition agents, with intent to induce those agents not to prosecute Cucchia for a violation of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138¼ et seq.).
The evidence discloses without conflict that Cucchia was released from jail, where he was being held for a violation of the National Prohibition Act, upon Megna's promise to deposit, and the subsequent deposit by both defendants, acting in concert, in the hands of two prohibition agents of the sum of $1,000. The prohibition agents testified that the money was paid as a bribe, and that they accepted it for the purpose of making a case against the defendants.
On the other hand, the defendants testified that the money was put up as a cash bond. On cross-examination, each defendant admitted that he was familiar with the procedure followed in the giving of bail bonds; nevertheless, in rebuttal, a United States commissioner was permitted to testify, over objection, to facts indicating that he was offered a bribe by Cucchia to accept a bond for some unidentified person on a previous occasion, which was wholly independent of and unconnected with this case. The trial court charged the jury that evidence of an offer to bribe the commissioner, which alleged offer he mistakenly attributed to the defendant Megna, was relevant to show the probability of an offer to bribe the prohibition agents.
In our opinion the court committed prejudicial error, both in its ruling on the objection to the commissioner's testimony and in its charge to the jury.
Evidence that tends to prove the offense charged in the indictment is relevant, although it also tends to prove an offense not included therein; but proof of an independent offense, unconnected with that charged in the indictment, though similar in character, is irrelevant, unless it also has a tendency to support the crime so charged. 16 C. J. 586; State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 Am. Rep. 69.
Where the question at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Alvord
...149 Va. 383, 140 S.E. 133; Wooton v. Commonwealth, 200 Ky. 588, 255 S.W. 153; State v. Haynes, 116 Ore. 635, 242 P. 603; Cucchia v. United States, 17 F.2d 86; People Little (Cal. App.), 259 P. 458; People v. Stark, 324 Ill. 289, 155 N.E. 271; Robinson v. State (Okla. Cr.), 254 P. 986; 8 R. ......
-
U.S. v. Wilson
...Hamilton v. United States, 409 F.2d 928 (5th Cir. 1969); Rosencranz v. United States, 334 F.2d 738 (1st Cir. 1964); Cucchia v. United States, 17 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1927).2 See also note 3, infra.3 Given the result we reach, we also need not divine how present procedural problems in this area......
-
U.S. v. Carter, 74-3815
...Jones. Therefore, Jones' conviction must also be reversed. Hamilton v. United States, 409 F.2d 928 (5th Cir. 1969); Cucchia v. United States, 17 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1927). Without the evidence of Carter's record of previous illegal whiskey offenses, the evidence of Carter's and Jones' specifi......
-
Hamilton v. United States
...Waker and indirectly influenced the verdict as to her co-defendant is great enough to require a new trial for both. In Cucchia v. United States, 5th Cir. 1927, 17 F.2d 86, this Court faced the same question of whether a prior unlawful act erroneously admitted as to one defendant could have ......