Kulp v. United States
| Decision Date | 19 January 1914 |
| Docket Number | 1795. |
| Parties | KULP v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
S. S Herring, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
A. B Dunsmore, U.S. Dist. Atty., of Wellsboro, Pa., and Andrew Hourigan, Asst. U.S. Dist. Atty., of Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Before GRAY, BUFFINGTON, and McPHERSON, Circuit Judges.
Two defendants, Harry E. Kulp, the plaintiff in error, and Steve Stevens, were indicted for violating Act June 25, 1910, c. 395, 36 Stat. 824 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1343), commonly known as the White Slave Traffic Act. Stevens pleaded guilty, but Kulp made a vigorous defense. The indictment contained 16 counts; of these the first 12 may be divided into two groups, one group charging the Shenandoah offense (to use a convenient phrase), and the other group charging the Wilkes-Barre offense. In these 12 counts Kulp and Stevens were indicted jointly; in the remaining 4 Kulp alone was indicted, being charged therein with an independent offense under the same statute, committed on different dates, with a different woman, and in connection with different interstate journeys. When the case was called for trial Kulp moved to quash the indictment for misjoinder of offences, and excepted to the court's refusal of this motion. The question thus raised would need consideration (see McElroy v. United States, 164 U.S. 76, 17 Sup.Ct. 31, 41 L.Ed. 355), if it were not for the facts that the government did not offer a word of testimony to support the last four counts, and assented to their dismissal by the court on Kulp's motion before he was required to proceed with his defense. It is clear, therefore, that he suffered no harm by the refusal to quash, and we need not consider this objection further.
He was convicted on the first, second, ninth, and tenth counts, all relating to the Wilkes-Barre offense, and his principal contention now is that the judgment ought to have been arrested, because there was no evidence-- or practically none-- to prove that the offense was committed in the Middle District. But the assertion is not founded in fact. We have carefully examined the whole record on this subject, and we find without difficulty that direct and positive evidence was given in support of each count on which he was convicted. The first two counts charge him with having caused to be transported, and with having aided and assisted in obtaining transportation for, and in transporting, in interstate commerce, two women for the purpose of prostitution; and the ninth and tenth counts charge him with causing these women to be persuaded, induced, etc., to go as passengers in interstate commerce for the same purpose. There is no doubt, and indeed there is no denial, that he furnished the transportation for both girls, and there was evidence (although it was conflicting) from which the jury might find the fact of persuasion. Both acts were done-- if done at all-- within the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and the verdict establishes these facts in favor of the government.
Sufficient evidence also was offered to prove his then existing intention and purpose, and it was not necessary that the words and the acts indicating such intention and purpose should have been said and done within a particular geographical area. Acts done and declarations made afterward and elsewhere might be relevant to throw light upon the state of his mind and his will while he was furnishing the transportation and persuading the girls to take the interstate journey in question. The learned judge submitted the evidence upon this subject to the jury with proper instructions.
The remaining assignments need little discussion. Complaint is made, because the court did not continue the case after the government had asked the following questions upon Kulp's cross-examination:
'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Stoehr
...93, 69 L.Ed. 465. 44 Cf. Langford v. United States, supra, 178 F.2d at page 53 ("before and at the time"), with Kulp v. United States, 3 Cir., 1914, 210 F. 249, at page 251; United States v. Johnson, supra, 129 F. 2d at page 960; Lisansky v. United States, 4 Cir., 1929, 31 F.2d 846, at page......
-
Fassi v. Schuler
...be suspected or charged; and such conduct is admissible evidence against him. Jones on Evidence (3 Ed.), sec. 287, p. 431; United States v. Kulp, 210 F. 249; State v. Glassock, 232 Mo. 278, 134 S.W. State v. Wisdom, 119 Mo. 539, 24 S.W. 1047; State v. McLaughlin, 149 Mo. 19, 50 S.W. 315. (3......
-
Shreve v. United States
...Acts done and declarations made after the act of which the defendant is accused are admissible as bearing on intent. Kulp v. United States, 3 Cir., 210 F. 249, 251. See also Samuels v. United States, 8 Cir., 232 F. 536, 541, 542, Ann. Cas.1917A, 711; Greenleaf on Evidence, 16th ed., vol. 3,......
-
Shama v. United States
...States, 6 Cir., 266 F. 55; Nokis v. United States, 8 Cir., 257 F. 413; Blackstock v. United States, 8 Cir., 261 F. 150; Kulp v. United States, 3 Cir., 210 F. 249; Beyer v. United States, 9 Cir., 251 F. 39 In Kelly v. United States, supra, where two women were transported from Seattle to Ala......