McQuaid v. United States

• Decision Date: 07 August 1952
• Docket Number: No. 11239.,11239.
• Citation: 198 F.2d 987,91 US App. DC 229
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
• Parties: McQUAID v. UNITED STATES.

91 US App. DC 229, 198 F.2d 987 (1952)

McQUAID v. UNITED STATES.

No. 11239.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 23, 1952.

Decided August 7, 1952.

Mr. Albert J. Ahern Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. William E. Kirk, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., William S. McKinley and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before CLARK, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

FAHY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on each of three counts of an indictment for receiving stolen goods consisting of furniture, in violation of § 22-2205, D.C.Code (1951).¹ The value of the goods covered by each count was stated to be in excess of $35. Appellant was acquitted on two other counts laid under the bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 209 (Supp. 1951).

Since punishment depends upon the value of the goods, see statute, n. 1, supra, and McQuaid v. United States, 1951, 90 U.S. App.D.C. 59, 193 F.2d 696, the jury, as required by the court, brought in a special verdict, finding under each count that the value of the goods was $35 or upward.

We are unable to hold, as we are uged to do, that the evidence was insufficient to enable the jury to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is true a principal witness against him was a self-confessed participant who had pled guilty to stealing the goods which appellant was charged with having received unlawfully. But the trial court instructed the jury that while as a matter of law they could convict upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, such testimony, though competent for their consideration, should be received with caution and scrutinized with care. No error appears here. Egan v. United States, 1923, 52 App. D.C. 384, 287 F. 958. This witness was in some respects vague and indefinite, but in other and critical respects he was clear and positive. He said he stole the furniture from the Mayer Furniture Company, alleged in the indictment to be the owner, and that appellant purchased it from him. Their previous conversations and other circumstances attendant upon the transactions to which he testified warranted the jury in finding beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the offenses, and also that the value of the goods specified in each count was $35 or more.² The testimony as to identity and ownership of the furniture, urged to be inadequate, was we think sufficient within the rule stated in Tatum v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 1952, 88 A.2d 495, with which we agree.

Appellant urges that since the indictment charges the goods were received "with intent to defraud the said The Mayer Furniture Co. * * * the owner thereof" it was error to instruct that it was not necessary to find the accused knew the articles were stolen specifically from said company. But the court did charge that it was essential the jury be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the articles were stolen and were received or bought by the accused with knowledge that they were stolen and with intent to defraud the owner. Furthermore, the court instructed that if the jury had "a reasonable doubt as to whether the Mayer Furniture Company identified and owned the furniture" they must acquit, on the theory such identification and ownership were essential elements of the crimes charged.

The objection now urged was not made below. Taken as a whole the instructions cover so well the elements of the crime that we are not required to consider any omission or addition not requested. Rule 30, Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A., read with Rule 52(a). While under the statute, n. 1, supra, "intent to defraud the owner" is an element of the offense, knowledge by the accused of the owner's identity is not stated to be so. Hence, at least in the absence of any objection to those given or any request for further instructions, the inclusion of the name of the owner where the indictment charges intent to defraud the owner is treated as surplusage.

Error is assigned also to the refusal of the court to permit counsel to inquire into the identity of those who supplied the arresting officers with information which caused them to go to appellant's premises, a secondhand furniture store, where the arrest occurred and certain articles were seized, one of which was introduced in evidence. On inquiry into the circumstances, held at appellant's request outside the presence of the jury, the officers testified in substance that they went to the store after being informed stolen property was there. They did not immediately arrest the accused. On the contrary, they...