Lew Moy v. United States

Citation237 F. 50
Decision Date18 October 1916
Docket Number4480.
PartiesLEW MOY et al v. UNITED STATES.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Mahlon E. Wilson, of Salt Lake City, Utah (T. S. Taliaferro, Jr. and W. A. Muir, both of Rock Springs, Wyo., and J. C. Wood of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.

Summers Burkhart, U.S. Atty., of Albuquerque, N.M.

Before HOOK and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and MUNGER, District Judge.

HOOK Circuit Judge.

Lew Moy, Sam Hee, and Hop Lee were indicted for a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States (Penal Code, Sec. 37) by knowingly bringing and causing to be brought from Mexico by land into the United States Chinese persons not lawfully entitled to enter or remain in the latter country, and by aiding and abetting therein (23 Stat. 117, Sec. 11). Hop Lee pleaded guilty. Lew Moy and Sam Hee were tried, convicted, and sentenced. They prosecuted this writ of error.

Complaint is made of the indictment. In a case of this kind there need not be that definiteness or detail of averment necessary in a charge of the offense which is the subject of the conspiracy. Dealy v. United States, 152 U.S. 539, 14 Sup.Ct. 680, 38 L.Ed. 545. The outlines of the plot or concert may well be as general in the minds of the conspirators as the prohibitions of the particular statute which they conspire to violate. It is said that the means to be employed are not set forth in the indictment. But the precise means may not have been a part of the concerted agreement or understanding. They may not have been predetermined, but left to the exigencies of the criminal enterprise as it progressed. It was expressly averred that the Chinese persons to be brought into the United States were not entitled to enter or to remain, that they were to be brought from Mexico and by land, and that they were to be taken to Rock Springs, Wyoming, and elsewhere in this country. The indictment was sufficient to inform defendants of the crime charged, and to protect them from a second prosecution for the same offense.

It is also urged that the conspiracy was at an end the instant the Chinese whose illegal entry was procured and facilitated were brought across the international boundary, and therefore the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the subsequent acts and declarations of one conspirator against the others. This is too narrow a view of the crime charged. Successfully to consummate the unlawful introduction of the prohibited aliens required more than the mere bringing of them across the line. It was necessary to evade the immigration officials by transporting them into the interior and concealing their identity. The subsequent assistance by defendants to that end may well have been an essential part of the unlawful project. It is not necessary that each conspirator participate in each step or stage of the common general design. One of them may do one thing; another, another. Some may take major parts, while the participation of others may be in a minor degree. It may be said here that the evidence against the defendants was sufficient for the consideration of the jury.

A serious question arises on the admission of the testimony of an attorney at law to conversations with defendant Sam Hee. Hee who lived in Wyoming, went with an attorney of that state to attend the trial at Santa Fe, N.M. On his way he stopped to see his codefendant, Hop Lee, who lived at Las Vegas, N.M. Hop Lee had employed a firm of attorneys at Las Vegas of whom Mr. Clark was a member. At his suggestion defendant Hee went to see Mr. Clark for the purpose of employing him as local counsel, if his Wyoming attorney, who had gone on to Santa Fe, had not already secured assistance there. After the conversations which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Krulewitch v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1949
    ...long since ended in success or failure when and if the alleged co-conspirator made the statement attributed to her. Cf. Lew Moy v. United States, 8 Cir., 237 F. 50. The statement plainly implied that petitioner was guilty of the crime for which he was on trial. It was made in petitioner's a......
  • United States v. McGuire
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 10, 1933
    ...the purpose of the conspiracy with which we are now dealing was properly shown. Shea v. United States (C. C. A.) 251 F. 440; Lew Moy v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 237 F. 50; Ferris v. United States (C. C. A.) 40 F.(2d) 837. Thus it was not error to show what was done with the tickets after they were ......
  • Haywood v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • October 5, 1920
    ...v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 28 Sup.Ct. 163, 52 L.Ed. 278, Aczel v. United States, 232 F. 652, 146 C.C.A. 578, Lew Moy v. United States, 237 F. 50, 150 C.C.A. 252, and Jelke v. United States, 255 F. 264, 166 434, defendants do not question that the solicitations and speeches were adequat......
  • Rettich v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • June 9, 1936
    ...divided up. Bellande v. United States (C.C.A.) 25 F. (2d) 1, 2; Murray v. United States (C. C.A.) 10 F.(2d) 409, 411; Lew Moy v. United States (C.C.A.) 237 F. 50, 52; Benton v. United States, supra; Gandreau v. United States (C.C.A.) 300 F. 21, 26; Dumbra et al. v. United States, 268 U.S. 4......
  • 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