Maxwell v. United States, 15488.
| Decision Date | 12 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 15488.,15488. |
| Parties | Shirley Ann MAXWELL, alias Shirley Ann Bagby, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Rodger J. Walsh, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Paul R. Shy, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo. (Edward L. Scheufler, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., was with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.
Shirley Ann Maxwell has appealed in forma pauperis from a judgment of conviction under Section 1702, Title 18, U.S. C. She was charged, by Information filed October 21, 1955 (indictment having been waived), with having unlawfully taken, at Kansas City, Missouri, on April 12, 1955, "a letter addressed to Sarah Dodd, 3239 East 32nd Street, Kansas City, Missouri, which letter had been in a Post Office and an authorized depository for mail matter, before it had been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence and to pry into the business and secrets of another, and did open, secrete and embezzle the contents of the same, to wit, a State of Missouri check in the amount of $10.50, No. 824979, dated April 12, 1955, payable to Sarah Dodd, in violation of Section 1702, Title 18, United States Code."
Section 1702, Title 18, U.S.C. reads as follows:
"Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
The District Court appointed Mr. Rodger J. Walsh, of the Kansas City, Missouri, bar, to represent the defendant. Upon arraignment on October 21, 1955, she entered a plea of guilty. On October 28, 1955, by leave of court, she withdrew that plea and entered a plea of not guilty. She waived trial by jury, and the case was tried to the court upon written stipulations of the facts.
It was stipulated that the defendant on April 12, 1955, lived at 3239 East 32nd Street, Kansas City, Missouri, a residence which had been converted into apartments, and that mail for all tenants thereof was delivered to a common mail box located on the porch. All of the tenants had access to this mail box, and it was customary for "the first person out to get their mail and place mail for other families on a little table in the hall." The letter addressed to Sarah Dodd at 3239 East 32nd Street, Kansas City, Missouri, being the letter referred to in the Information, had been placed in a United States Post Office and in an authorized depository for mail matter at 3239 East 32nd Street, Kansas City, Missouri, for delivery to Sarah Dodd, and was on April 12, 1955, removed from the depository or mail box at that address, together with other mail, by the resident-manager of the apartment building or by a tenant and placed with the other mail upon the table in the hall of the building. The defendant went to the table upon which the mail had been placed, took the Sarah Dodd letter with intent to embezzle it and its contents, opened the letter, secreted the check contained in it, forged an endorsement of the check, and cashed it. Neither the resident-manager nor any tenant of the building had express authority to receive mail matter "as agent of any specific addressee."
The question which the District Court was called upon to decide was whether the stealing by the defendant of the letter addressed to Sarah Dodd, which concedely had never been delivered manually to her, was a federal offense under Section 1702. The importance of the question at the present time, when the mails are flooded with letters containing Government checks, both state and federal, can hardly be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Martinez
...letter, postal card, or package ... before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed." See also Maxwell v. United States, 235 F.2d 930, 932 (8th Cir.1956) (clear intent of statute to "protect a letter from theft from the time it is mailed until it has actually been receive......
-
Nouse v. Nouse
...1702. See Vernars v. Young, 539 F.2d 966, 969 (3rd Cir. 1976); United States v. Maxwell, 137 F.Supp. 298, 303 (W.D.Mo.1955), aff'd, 235 F.2d 930 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 943, 77 S.Ct. 266, 1 L.Ed.2d 239 (1956); Cohen v. Cohen, 26 Tex.Civ.App. 315, 63 So. 544, 545 20 The question o......
-
United States v. Clemons, 22344
...280 F.Supp. 510, 521 n. 4 (E.D.La.1968); United States v. Maxwell, 137 F.Supp. 298, 305 (W.D.Mo. 1955), aff'd on other grounds, 235 F.2d 930 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 943, 77 S.Ct. 266, 1 L.Ed.2d 239 (1956). In fact it is recognized that a federal district court may take judicial n......
-
Ross v. United States
...over mail matter from the time it enters the mails until it reaches the addressee or his authorized agent". Maxwell v. United States, 235 F.2d 930, 932 (8 Cir. 1956), cert. denied 352 U.S. 943, 77 S.Ct. 266, 1 L.Ed.2d 239. We would be reluctant to retreat from that broad approach and now to......