Means v. United States, No. 5802.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | MARTIN, Justice, and VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices |
| Citation | 65 F.2d 206,62 App. DC 118 |
| Parties | MEANS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Docket Number | No. 5802. |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1933 |
62 App. DC 118, 65 F.2d 206 (1933)
MEANS
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 5802.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Argued February 8, 1933.
Decided April 17, 1933.
T. Morris Wampler, Joseph Turco, J. William Tomlinson, and William E. Leahy, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Leo A. Rover, William H. Collins, and Roger Robb, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
MARTIN, Chief Justice.
Appellant, defendant below, was convicted of the crime of larceny.
The indictment against him contained four counts. The first count charged the larceny of $100,000 from Mrs. Evalyn Walsh McLean on March 7, 1932; the third count charged the embezzlement from her of the same money; the second count charged the larceny of $4,000 from Mrs. McLean on the 18th day of March 1932; and the fourth count charged the embezzlement of the same money.
Defendant pleaded not guilty. At the trial the court directed a verdict of not guilty on the fourth count. The jury found the defendant not guilty on the third count, but guilty on the first and second or larceny counts.
At the trial the defendant offered no testimony. The testimony of the government convincingly established the following facts: That after the kidnaping of the infant son of Colonel and Mrs. Charles A. Lindbergh on or about the first day of March 1932, the defendant, in an interview with Mrs. McLean, persuaded her by means of false and fraudulent statements that he could assist in locating and recovering the kidnaped baby. Mrs. McLean was induced by these representations to pay over to defendant the sum of $100,000 with which to pay the ransom and secure the return of the child. Upon a later occasion defendant by similar means secured from Mrs. McLean the sum of $4,000 for the payment of alleged expenses of the kidnapers. These representations made by defendant were willfully false and fraudulent and were designed solely for the purpose of obtaining the money from Mrs. McLean and not for the purpose of locating and recovering the child. The defendant converted the money thus paid to him to his own use, and none of it was ever expended in an effort to recover the child, nor was any part of it returned to Mrs. McLean.
It is contended by appellant that the lower court erred in refusing to require the government to elect between the larceny and embezzlement counts of the indictment before the submission of the case to the jury. This
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Baker, Cr. No. 39-66.
...of oral argument. 34 Atkinson v. United States, 53 App.D.C. 277, 289 F. 935 (1923). 35 See Means v. United States, 62 App. D.C. 118, 65 F.2d 206 (1933); and Dobbins v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 218, 157 F.2d 257 (1946), wherein defendant, a lawyer, was charged with 69 counts—23 counts ......
-
United States v. Beatty, Cr. No. 27577.
...S.Ct. 685, 100 L.Ed. 1013 (1956); United States v. Henderson, 185 F.2d 189 (7th Cir. 1950); and Means v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 118, 65 F.2d 206 (1933). See also Wakaksan v. United States, 367 F.2d 639 (8th Cir. 1966); Reistroffer v. United States, 258 F.2d 379 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. de......
-
Bracey v. United States, No. 8618.
...F.2d 34, 36, and authorities there cited; Kidwell v. United States, 38 App.D.C. 566, 574; Means v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 118, 119, 65 F.2d 206, 207. 8 Borum v. United States, 61 App.D.C. 4, 6, 56 F.2d 301, 303. 9 Ryan v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 74, 83, 6 Ann.Cas. 633; Borum v. Unite......
-
Shettel v. United States, No. 7456.
...L.Ed. ___. See also, Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 451, 28 S. Ct. 163, 52 L.Ed. 278; Means v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 118, 65 F.2d 206; Fall v. United States, 60 App.D.C. 124, 130, 49 F.2d 506, 512, certiorari denied, 283 U.S. 867, 51 S.Ct. 657, 75 L.Ed. 1471; Johnston v. Un......
-
United States v. Baker, Cr. No. 39-66.
...of oral argument. 34 Atkinson v. United States, 53 App.D.C. 277, 289 F. 935 (1923). 35 See Means v. United States, 62 App. D.C. 118, 65 F.2d 206 (1933); and Dobbins v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 218, 157 F.2d 257 (1946), wherein defendant, a lawyer, was charged with 69 counts—23 counts ......
-
United States v. Beatty, Cr. No. 27577.
...S.Ct. 685, 100 L.Ed. 1013 (1956); United States v. Henderson, 185 F.2d 189 (7th Cir. 1950); and Means v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 118, 65 F.2d 206 (1933). See also Wakaksan v. United States, 367 F.2d 639 (8th Cir. 1966); Reistroffer v. United States, 258 F.2d 379 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. de......
-
Bracey v. United States, No. 8618.
...F.2d 34, 36, and authorities there cited; Kidwell v. United States, 38 App.D.C. 566, 574; Means v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 118, 119, 65 F.2d 206, 207. 8 Borum v. United States, 61 App.D.C. 4, 6, 56 F.2d 301, 303. 9 Ryan v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 74, 83, 6 Ann.Cas. 633; Borum v. Unite......
-
United States v. Dillinger, No. 9366.
...by a witness so long as they appeared to have been incidental and inadvertent.7 Indeed, in Means v. United States, 62 App.D.C. 118, 65 F.2d 206, the Court dealt with almost the precise reference, the witness quoting the defendant as referring to a man whom he had met in the Atlanta Finally,......