Georgis v. State
| Decision Date | 15 May 1923 |
| Docket Number | 22981 |
| Citation | 193 N.W. 713,110 Neb. 352 |
| Parties | BILLY GEORGIS ET AL., v. STATE OF NEBRASKA |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court for Douglas county: CHARLES LESLIE JUDGE. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Organ & Bohan and J. R. Lones, for plaintiffs in error.
O. S Spillman, Attorney General and Lee Basye, contra.
Heard before MORRISSEY, C. J., ALDRICH, DAY and GOOD, JJ., BUTTON District Judge.
Billy Georgis and Louis S. Dochoff, plaintiffs in error and hereinafter referred to as defendants, have brought this case to this court for a review of the record of their conviction upon an information, charging them with the offense of conspiring to commit grand larceny. Each of the defendants was sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of two years and to pay a fine of $ 10,000.
The evidence indicates that defendants represented to one Todoroff that they could purchase from the secretary of the United States treasury paper like that used in making United States currency, but that it could be purchased only in quantities costing $ 10,000, and which quantity, when printed, would make $ 1,500,000 in counterfeit money that would pass as genuine, and that they possessed a machine for printing counterfeit money; that they had $ 6,700 and required $ 3,300 more, in order to purchase a consignment of paper. They attempted to persuade and induce Todoroff to furnish the $ 3,300 for the unlawful purpose. Todoroff was shown samples of the paper and a new $ 5 bill, which they claimed was one that had been recently made. Todoroff feigned interest in their proposition and promised to furnish $ 3,000 for the unlawful scheme. He suggested giving them a check, but they insisted on having money and in large denominations, preferably $ 100 bills. He promised to go to the bank and get the money, and fixed upon a time and place when and where he would meet them and turn over to them the $ 3,000. Todoroff then communicated with officers of the United States secret service, and was furnished a package of counterfeit bills, which he was instructed to turn over to them instead of the real money. He met them at the time and place agreed upon and turned over the package of counterfeit bills, and instantly the defendants were arrested by the officers of the law. They were searched, and, after disclosing where their room was in an Omaha hotel, police and United States secret service officers visited their room, made some observation therein, and then a little later, with one of the defendants, returned to the room and searched the same and took therefrom papers and documents, some of which were of an incriminating nature and which were used as evidence in the trial of the case.
1. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the defendants filed a motion in which they represented that certain documents and papers that were their private property had been unlawfully taken and removed from their custody and possession without their consent, and asked the court to enter an order directing the return of the property so taken from them. This motion was overruled, and the ruling thereon is assigned as error.
When some of these papers and documents, so taken, were offered in evidence, the defendants objected thereto, because they had been unlawfully taken from them, in violation of the provisions of both the federal and state Constitutions against unreasonable searches. This question has recently received careful attention in this court in the case of Billings v. State, 109 Neb. 596, 191 N.W. 721, wherein it was held: "Where articles or information are offered in evidence, which are pertinent to the issue, the court will not exclude them because they may have been obtained in an irregular or illegal manner." In that case, as in this, before trial motion was made for a return to the defendant of the articles seized by the officer. It is true that in that case the officer had a search warrant, but the articles seized were not on the premises described in the search warrant, and the decision is not based upon the fact that the officer had held a search warrant to search certain premises other than those where the articles were found. In that case there is a full discussion of the question and citation of the authorities.
2. Defendants contend that the evidence fails to disclose an indictable conspiracy, and argue that a conspiracy to be indictable must be one against an innocent person, and that the design of the law is not the protection of one rogue dealing with another, but rather to protect those who, for some honest purpose, are induced, upon fraudulent representations, to part with their money or property. The contention is unsound. It is immaterial whether Todoroff...
To continue reading
Request your trial