Kirby v. United States
Decision Date | 11 April 1899 |
Docket Number | No. 164,164 |
Citation | Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47, 19 S.Ct. 574, 43 L.Ed. 8 (1899) |
Parties | 0 KIRBY v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A. G. Safford, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Boyd, for the United States.
The plaintiff in error, Kirby, was indicted in the district court of the United States for the Southern division of the district of South Dakota, under the act of congress of March 3 1875, entitled 'An act to punish certain larcenies, and the receivers of stolen goods.'18 Stat. 479, c. 144.
The first section provides that 'any person who shall embezzle, steal or purloin any money, property, record, voucher or valuable thing whatever of the moneys, goods, chattels, records or property of the United States shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof before the district or circuit court of the United States in the district wherein said offense may have been committed, or into which he shall carry or have in possession of said property so embezzled, stolen or purloined, shall be punished therefor by imprisonment at hard labor in the penitentiary not exceeding five years, or by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court before which he shall be convicted.'
By the second section it is provided that 'if any person shall receive, conceal, or aid in concealing or have, or retain in his possession with intent to convert to his own use or gain, any money, property, record, voucher or valuable thing whatever, of the moneys, goods, chattels, records or property of the United States, which has theretofore been embezzled, stolen or purloined, such person shall, on conviction before the circuit or district court of the United States in the district wherein he may have such property, be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or imprisonment at hard labor in the penitentiary not exceeding five years, one or both, at the discretion of the court before which he shall be convicted; and such receiver may be tried either before or after the conviction of the principal felon, but if the party has been convicted, then the judgment against him shall be conclusive evidence in the prosecution against such receiver that the property of the United States therein described has been embezzled, stolen or purloined.'18 Stat. 479.
The indictment contained three courts, but the defendant was tried only on the first.In that count it was stated that Thomas J. Wallace, Ed. Baxter, and Frank King, on the 7th day of June, 1896, at Highmore, within the jurisdiction of the court, feloniously and forcibly broke into a post office of the United States, and feloniously stole, took, and carried away therefrom certain moneys and property of the United States, to wit, 3,750 postage stamps of the denomination of two cents, and of the value of two cents each, 1,266 postage stamps of the denomination of one cent. and of the value of one cent each, 140 postage stamps of the denomination of four cents, and of the value of four cents each, 250 postage stamps of the denomination of five cents, and of the value of five cents each, 80 postage stamps of the denomination of eight cents, and of the value of eight cents each, and also United States treasury notes, national bank notes, silver certificates, gold certificates, silver, nickel, and copper coins of the United States, as well as current money of the United States, a more particular description of which the grand jury were unable to ascertain, of the value of $58.19; and that the persons above named were severally indicted and convicted of that offense, and had been duly sentenced upon such conviction.
It was then alleged that the defendant, on the 9th day of June, 1896, at the city of Sioux Falls, the postage stamps 'so as aforesaid feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away, feloniously did receive and have in his possession, with intent then and there to convert the same to his own use and gain, the said oe Kirby then and there well knowing the said postage stamps to have been theretofore feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away, contrary to the form, force, and effect of the statutes of the United States in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.'
At the trial of Kirby, the government offered in evidence a part of the record of the trial of Wallace, Baxter, and King, from which it appeared that Wallace and Baxter, after severally pleading not guilty, withdrew their respective pleas, and each pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary at hard labor for the term of four years.It appeared from the same record that King, having pleaded not guilty, was found guilty, and sentenced to the penitentiary at hard labor for the term of five years.
The admission in evidence of the record of the conviction of Wallace, Baxter, and King was objected to, upon the ground that the above act of March 3, 1875, was unconstitutional so far as it made that conviction conclusive evidence in the prosecution of the receiver that the property of the United States described in the indictment against him had been embezzled, stolen, or purloined.The objection was overruled, and the record offered was admitted in evidence, with exceptions to the accused.
After referring to the provisions of the act of March 3, 1875, and to the indictment against Kirby, the court, among other things, said in its charge to the jury: ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Williamson
... ... a dying declaration does not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution, and we affirm the ... The State further maintains, citing Kirby v. United States , 174 U.S. 47, 61, 19 S.Ct. 574, 43 L.Ed. 890 (1899), that dying declarations have ... ...
-
In re Markel
... ... Finally, the Markels filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, again challenging, inter alia, the ... 10. Graham, 946 F.2d at 994 (quoting Kirby ... ...
-
People v. Aranda
... ... [407 P.2d 268] the confession obtained was inadmissible by virtue of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 ... (See generally Salinger v. United States, 272 U.S. 542, 548, 47 S.Ct. 173, 71 L.Ed. 398; Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47, 55, 19 S.Ct. 574, 43 L.Ed. 890.) ... 9 In justification of joint ... ...
-
U.S. v. Kaufman
... 546 F.3d 1242 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, ... Arlan Dean KAUFMAN, ... Id. at 1016-17, 108 S.Ct. 2798 (discussing Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47, 55, 19 S.Ct. 574, 43 L.Ed. 890 (1899)). Third, Coy suggests that ... ...
-
Hearsay
...Cir. 1972). A statement may be inadmissible as a dying declaration, but admissible as an excited utterance . Kirby v. United States , 174 U.S. 47 (1899). Admission of dying declarations does not violate the Constitution’s confrontation clause . Donovan v. Sears Roebuck & Co. , 849 F.Supp. 8......
-
Declarations
...Cir. 1972). A statement may be inadmissible as a dying declaration, but admissible as an excited utterance . Kirby v. United States , 174 U.S. 47 (1899). Admission of dying declarations does not violate the Constitution’s confrontation clause . Donovan v. Sears Roebuck & Co. , 849 F.Supp. 8......
-
Hearsay
...Cir. 1972). A statement may be inadmissible as a dying declaration, but admissible as an excited utterance . Kirby v. United States , 174 U.S. 47 (1899). Admission of dying declarations does not violate the Constitution’s confrontation clause . Donovan v. Sears Roebuck & Co. , 849 F.Supp. 8......
-
Table of cases
...DMV (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 549, §11:142.4.5 Kinlin v. Kline (6th Cir. 2014) 749 F.3d 573, 580-581, §11:122.2.2 Kirby v. United States (1889) 174 US 47, §9:105.4 Kling v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1068, §5:87 Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal.3d 826, §§4:16.1......