Griffith v. United States
| Citation | 230 F.2d 607 |
| Decision Date | 07 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 12614.,12614. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Parties | Thomas Moreaux GRIFFITH. Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Pattie L. Hilliard, Joe P. Peck, Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.
Fred Elledge, Jr., and Andrew M. Gant, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal from judgment and sentence of three years' imprisonment entered by the United States District Judge upon the verdict of a jury, finding defendant guilty on the first count of an indictment for violation of the Mann Act, Section 2421, Title 18, U.S.C.A., has been heard and considered upon the briefs and oral arguments of the opposing attorneys and upon the record in the case;
And it appearing that the omission of the word "knowingly" in the indictment is insignificant, where the indictment charged that appellant had transported in interstate commerce a female from Birmingham, Alabama, to Nashville, Tennessee, via Corsicana, Texas, "for immoral purposes and commercialized prostitution", inasmuch as the words used in the indictment plainly and definitely indicate that the essential ingredient of scienter existed in the mind of appellant; that the indictment is a sufficiently plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged, in compliance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7, section (c), 18 U.S.C.A.; and that it meets the standard required by law, Gariepy v. United States, 6 Cir., 189 F.2d 459; Gariepy v. United States, 6 Cir., 220 F. 2d 252; Ross v. United States, 6 Cir., 180 F.2d 160, and United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 42 S.Ct. 303, 66 L.Ed. 619.;
And it appearing that there is substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury and that there is no error of law in the rulings or the charge of United States District Judge Davies.
The judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Thompson-Powell Drilling Company
...requirements. The omission may rightly be treated as insignificant. Wheatley v. United States, 4 Cir., 159 F.2d 599; Griffith v. United States, 6 Cir., 230 F.2d 607. The defendants Standard and Pasotex are both convicted and each is fined $2,000 on Count Count 18 Undoubtedly there was a con......
-
U.S. v. De Castro-Font
...at 242 (quoting Madsen v. United States, 165 F.2d 507, 509-10 (10th Cir.1947)); see also Portnoy, 316 F.2d at 488; Griffith v. United States, 230 F.2d 607 (6th Cir.1956); cf., United States v. Cincotta, 689 F.2d 238, 242 (1st Cir.1982) ("Indictments must be read to include facts which are n......
-
U.S. v. Maselli
..."thereafter . . . did perform . . . acts to promote . . ." the unlawful activity and did distribute its proceeds. In Griffith v. United States, 230 F.2d 607 (6th Cir. 1956), the court held that omission of the word "knowingly" from an indictment for a Mann Act violation was not fatal becaus......
-
U.S. v. McLennan, 81-1340
...(scienter element is sufficiently pleaded if "other allegations in the indictment compel an inference of intent"); Griffith v. United States, 230 F.2d 607 (6th Cir. 1956) (word "knowingly" not required when other words "plainly and definitely indicate ... the essential ingredient of In Port......