Pappas v. United States

• Decision Date: 07 May 1917
• Citation: 241 F. 665
• Parties: PAPPAS v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

241 F. 665

PAPPAS v. UNITED STATES.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 7, 1917

R. M Terrell and William Edens, both of Pocatello, Idaho, for plaintiff in error.

J. L McClear, U.S. Atty., and J. R. Smead, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Boise, Idaho.

Before GILBERT and HUNT, Circuit Judges, and WOLVERTON, District judge.

GILBERT Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error was convicted under an indictment which charged him with unlawfully transporting, or causing to be transported, his wife from Rock Springs, Wyo., to Pocatello Idaho, for immoral purposes, in violation of the Mann White Slave Act of June 25, 1910.

It is assigned as error that the wife of the plaintiff in error was permitted to testify against him. In Cohen v. United States, 214 F.

23, 130 C.C.A. 417, this court held that conduct such as that with which the plaintiff in error here is charged constituted a personal wrong, which, under the rule of the common law authorizing a wife to testify against her husband in cases of his personal injury to her, permitted her to testify against him, citing United States v. Rispoli (D.C.) 189 F. 271, and United States v. Gwynne (D.C.) 209 F. 993. The plaintiff in error cites the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Johnson v. United States, 221 F. 250, 137 C.C.A. 106, in which that court reversed the judgment of the District Court, and held that, in the absence of proof of personal violence, in a prosecution under Act June 25, 1910, the wife is not a competent witness against the husband, under the rule of the common law. We are not convinced, however, that our ruling in the Cohen Case was erroneous, and we may add that a petition for certiorari to review the decision in that case was denied. 235 U.S. 696, 35 Sup.Ct. 199, 59 L.Ed. 430.

Error is assigned to the admission in evidence of a certain letter written by the wife of the plaintiff in error while at Pocatello, two days after her marriage. The circumstances under which the letter was admitted were these: The wife of the plaintiff in error was called as a witness for the government, and testified only as to the movements of herself and her husband from the time when they left Rock Springs until the arrest was made. Thereupon, upon cross-examination counsel for plaintiff in error asked her if her husband had suggested to her that she engage in prostitution, or if she had since her marriage engaged in prostitution, to which she answered that she had not. In so testifying, the witness in effect became a witness for the defense. It was to impeach the evidence so drawn out on the cross-examination that the letter was admitted in evidence. Counsel for the government read the first portion, in which the writer stated that she was 'the unhappiest girl that ever walked in shoes,' and 'here I am two days married, and he wants me to hustle. ' Thereupon counsel for plaintiff in error objected to the...