Graham v. United States, No. 10666.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtWILBUR K. MILLER, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit
Citation187 F.2d 87,88 US App. DC 129
PartiesGRAHAM v. UNITED STATES.
Decision Date28 December 1950
Docket NumberNo. 10666.

88 US App. DC 129, 187 F.2d 87 (1950)

GRAHAM
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 10666.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued October 17, 1950.

Decided December 28, 1950.

Writ of Certiorari Denied April 30, 1951.


Mr. T. Emmett McKenzie, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Kenneth D. Wood, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Joseph F. Goetten, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Richard M. Roberts, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

Writ of Certiorari Denied April 30, 1951. See 71 S.Ct. 741.

WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge.

The appellant, an attorney, was indicted in two counts for grand larceny under section 2201 of Title 22 of the District of Columbia Code (1940 ed.). He was charged with having stolen money from Francisco Gal in the amounts of $100 and $1,900. He appeals from a judgment and conviction entered upon a verdict of guilty.

The complaining witness, Francisco Gal, consulted appellant in his professional capacity. Gal had been arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, and had forfeited

187 F.2d 88
$25 as collateral. He was seeking American citizenship and was apprehensive that the arrest would impede or bar his attainment of that goal. An immigrant employed as a cook, his command of the English language was far from complete. He testified that appellant Graham told him that he wasn't sure what he could do, that Graham would "have to talk to the policeman. You have to pay money for that, because the money is talk." He further testified that Graham told him he would charge him $200 for a fee; that he would have to pay an additional $2,000 for the police; that Graham said "don't mention the money for nobody and for the police either." As a result, Gal testified that he paid the appellant $300 on February 2, 1950 (of which, he said, $200 was paid as a legal fee), and $1,900 on February 3, 1950. The police officer who originally had arrested Gal testified that he came to appellant's office, and after talking with Graham, told Gal that he wasn't in any trouble. Gal testified to substantially the same effect. The officer testified that Graham did not then or at any other time offer or give him money. The appellant testified that the entire payment was intended as a fee for legal services; that he had never mentioned money for the police; that no part of the money was in fact paid to the police or anyone else, but was kept by the appellant

Appellant's principal contentions are: First, that the evidence supports the proposition that Gal voluntarily gave Graham complete title to the money and therefore appellant is entitled to a directed verdict; and, second, that the trial court's charge to the jury was erroneous in not sufficiently distinguishing between the situation where one obtains complete title to another's property by fraud or trick and the case where possession only is obtained.

Section 2201 of Title 22 of the District of Columbia Code provides as follows: "Whoever shall feloniously take and carry away anything of value of the amount or value of $50 or upward, including things savoring of the realty, shall suffer imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years."

Interpreting this statute, this court has held that "one who obtains money from another upon the representation that he will perform certain service therewith for the latter, intending at the time to convert the money, and actually converting it, to his own use, is guilty of larceny". Means v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 118, 119, 65 F.2d 206, 207. See also Talbert v. United States, 42 App.D.C. 1, 16; Beck v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 223, 66 F.2d 203; John v. United States, 65 App.D.C. 11, 12-13, 79 F.2d 136, 137-138; Bimbo v. United States, 65 App.D.C. 246, 249, 82 F.2d 852, 855; Smith v. People, 53 N.Y. 111; Martin v. State, 123 Ga. 478, 51 S.E. 334; Crum v. State, 148 Ind. 401, 47 N.E. 833; People v. Martin, 116 Mich. 446, 74 N.W. 653. In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Giles v. State, No. 02-63.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • September 2, 2004
    ...found to have been committed in the particular case. Compton, 931 P.2d at 940; Miller, 904 P.2d at 348 (quoting Graham v. United States, 187 F.2d 87, 90 (D.C.Cir.1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 920, 71 S.Ct. 741, 95 L.Ed. 1353 (1951)). We must therefore determine whether the jury instructions......
  • State v. Vars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 29, 1966
    ...may be guilty Page 748 of larceny where delivery was fraudulently induced.' See generally, Graham v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 187 F.2d 87, 89, cert. denied, 341 U.S. 920, 71 S.Ct. 741, 95 L.Ed. 1353; Commonwealth v. Leland, 311 Mass. 447, 452, 42 N.E.2d 249; 2 Wharton, Criminal L......
  • Pierson v. State, No. 96-91
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 19, 1998
    ...found to have been committed in the particular case. Compton, 931 P.2d at 940; Miller, 904 P.2d at 348 (quoting Graham v. United States, 187 F.2d 87, 90 (D.C.Cir.1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 920, 71 S.Ct. 741, 95 L.Ed. Page 1127 1353 (1951)). We must therefore determine whether the jury in......
  • Keats v. State, No. 01-231.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 13, 2003
    ...the instruction `leaves no doubt as to under what circumstances the crime can be found to have been committed.' Graham v. United States, 187 F.2d 87, 90 (D.C.Cir.1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 920, 71 S.Ct. 741, 95 L.Ed. 1353 (1951); United States v. Salliey, 360 F.2d 699, 702 (4th Cir.1966)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Giles v. State, No. 02-63.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • September 2, 2004
    ...found to have been committed in the particular case. Compton, 931 P.2d at 940; Miller, 904 P.2d at 348 (quoting Graham v. United States, 187 F.2d 87, 90 (D.C.Cir.1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 920, 71 S.Ct. 741, 95 L.Ed. 1353 (1951)). We must therefore determine whether the jury instructions......
  • State v. Vars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 29, 1966
    ...may be guilty Page 748 of larceny where delivery was fraudulently induced.' See generally, Graham v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 187 F.2d 87, 89, cert. denied, 341 U.S. 920, 71 S.Ct. 741, 95 L.Ed. 1353; Commonwealth v. Leland, 311 Mass. 447, 452, 42 N.E.2d 249; 2 Wharton, Criminal L......
  • Pierson v. State, No. 96-91
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 19, 1998
    ...found to have been committed in the particular case. Compton, 931 P.2d at 940; Miller, 904 P.2d at 348 (quoting Graham v. United States, 187 F.2d 87, 90 (D.C.Cir.1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 920, 71 S.Ct. 741, 95 L.Ed. Page 1127 1353 (1951)). We must therefore determine whether the jury in......
  • Keats v. State, No. 01-231.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 13, 2003
    ...the instruction `leaves no doubt as to under what circumstances the crime can be found to have been committed.' Graham v. United States, 187 F.2d 87, 90 (D.C.Cir.1950), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 920, 71 S.Ct. 741, 95 L.Ed. 1353 (1951); United States v. Salliey, 360 F.2d 699, 702 (4th Cir.1966)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT