McBryde v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 July 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 4310.,4310. |
| Citation | 7 F.2d 466 |
| Parties | McBRYDE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Ralph Davis, of Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Fisher, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Memphis, Tenn. (S. E. Murray, U. S. Atty., and A. A. Hornsby, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Memphis, Tenn., on the brief), for the United States.
Before DONAHUE and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, District Judge.
In an indictment charging the unlawful use of the United States mails for fraudulent purposes, in violation of the provision of section 215 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. § 10385), it is sufficient to set forth generally the fraudulent scheme and artifice which the accused devised and intended to devise, and in the execution of which fraudulent scheme he is charged with the unlawful use of the United States mails. Durland v. U. S., 161 U. S. 306, 315, 16 S. Ct. 508, 40 L. Ed. 709; Rosen v. U. S., 161 U. S. 29, 34, 16 S. Ct. 434, 40 L. Ed. 606; Preeman v. U. S., 244 F. 1, 8, 156 C. C. A. 429.
While perhaps it is the better practice for the pleader to state in general terms the nature of the scheme and the manner and method employed and intended to be employed by the accused in accomplishing the fraudulent purpose, nevertheless the accused may not complain if the indictment charges the nature, intent, and purpose of the scheme with the same particularity and detail as described in a letter written by the accused and by him sent through the United States mail to the person intended to be defrauded, and to that end and for that purpose the letter itself may be copied into the indictment, if the proper averment is made that the scheme and artifice is, and was, as written and described in such letter.
The indictment in this case charges the defendant with devising and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and with the use of the United States mail pursuant to and for the purpose of executing such scheme, with such particularity as fully to inform defendant of the offense charged and what he must meet on the trial. U. S. v. Comyns, 248 U. S. 349, 353, 39 S. Ct. 98, 63 L. Ed. 287; U. S. v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483, 8 S. Ct. 571, 31 L. Ed. 516; Bettman v. U. S., 224 F. 819, 826, 140 C. C. A. 265.
It is further claimed that the indictment in this case is defective, for the reason that it does not specifically charge that the accused knew the statements made in this letter, which he caused to be mailed to the addressee, were false and fraudulent. Among other things, he stated in this letter, in substance, that the writer was with the prohibition force from Washington, D. C.; that this force had been working the city for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Denno, 62
...the New York practice. Anderson v. United States, 6 Cir., 124 F.2d 58, rev'd 318 U.S. 350, 63 S.Ct. 599, 87 L.Ed. 829; McBryde v. United States, 6 Cir., 7 F.2d 466. Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice CLARK joins as to Part I of this opinion, dissenting in part and concurring in In Ste......
- Jones v. Harrison
-
United States v. Evans, 15055.
...by him and signed or admitted to be correct. This is true even though it was reduced to writing by one other than the accused. McBryde v. United States, 7 F.2d 466, 467, C.A. Whether a confession is voluntary is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury. Carignan, supra; McBryde, supra......