Pauldino v. United States, 8747.

Decision Date05 June 1967
Docket NumberNo. 8747.,8747.
Citation379 F.2d 170
PartiesGeorge Anthony PAULDINO, alias Anthony Capra, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

William H. Erickson, Denver, Colo. (Hindry, Erickson & Meyer and Charles F. Brega, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellant.

Lawrence M. Henry, U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before BREITENSTEIN, SETH and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.

SETH, Circuit Judge.

The jury found the appellant guilty of transporting a forged security in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S. C.A. § 2314,1 and the appellant has taken this appeal.

The primary argument on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the jury's verdict. It is conceded that the forged security in question, a cashier's check in the sum of $250, was bogus. The Montana bank upon which the check was drawn and the person who signed the check as maker are nonexistent. It is also conceded that the appellent introduced the check into interstate commerce. The appellant however contends that the record discloses no evidence to support a finding by the jury that he introduced the bogus check into interstate commerce with knowledge of its bogus nature, and that proof of such guilty knowledge is the critical element of the offense for which he was convicted.

The appellant testified during the trial, and his account of the incident leading to his indictment and conviction may be summarized as follows: In the fall of 1964 appellant attended a "turkey shoot" sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars organization in Bennett, Colorado. The turkey shoot was apparently an occasion for gambling in the VFW building, and appellant joined a "7-11" dice game, in which he engaged in side bets with different people standing around the dice table. A man known only as "Anthony Capra" offered the cashier's check as security for side bets with appellant. Appellant testified that he was not acquainted with Capra, had not seen him before that day, and has not seen him since. He related that Capra identified himself as "Anthony Capra" and gave a home address in Denver, which appellant was unable to remember precisely. Capra passed the check to appellant for examination before the betting started, and appellant noticed that the payee on the face of the check was "Anthony Capra," and that the check was not then endorsed. Appellant returned the check to Capra and the game continued. Appellant further testified that after a time, appellant succeeded in winning $250 from Capra. Appellant took the check from Capra and placed it in his pocket, neglecting to notice if Capra had endorsed the check. Appellant continued in the game, making bets with other people at the table and finally losing all his cash. Appellant owed $40 to another player and thought of cashing the check won earlier from Capra, at which time appellant realized that "I forgot to get the endorsement from him Capra." Appellant looked around the room for Capra, but did not see him, and appellant could not recall if he looked for Capra in the other game rooms in the building. Appellant then approached Mr. Froman, a VFW official, and said that he wanted to cash the check. Froman responded that the check would have to be approved. Appellant also testified that Mr. Meyer, another official of the VFW, appeared at the cashier's table. Appellant testified that he told Meyer and Froman that he was not "Anthony Capra," but that Mr. Meyer said an endorsement was necessary, and for appellant to sign "Anthony Capra" and give an address. Appellant endorsed the check by signing "Anthony Capra" and added a Denver address, which appellant testified was his best recollection of the address Capra had given during the betting. Appellant testified that neither Meyer nor Froman asked him for any personal identification, and that Meyer remarked that a cashier's check is "good as gold."

Meyer and Froman, the VFW officials who cashed the bogus check for appellant, appeared as Government witnesses. According to Meyer and Froman, the appellant represented himself as the payee of the check, "Anthony Capra," and did or said nothing to indicate otherwise. Meyer and Froman also testified that they sought identification from the appellant, but that appellant told them the state had picked up his driver's license or that he had lost his billfold. Three defense witnesses testified that they had seen the cashier's check in the dice game before the appellant won it, and one of these witnesses testified that he had placed bets on the check himself before the appellant won it. Another of these defense witnesses testified that he accompanied the appellant to the cashier's table, and generally corroborated appellant's account of the check cashing incident. Although the record contains the testimony of other witnesses, we conclude that further discussion of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • United States v. Solomon
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • April 9, 1970
    ...An integral element in the offense stated by 18 U.S.C. § 2314 is the existence of guilty intent or knowledge. Pauldino v. United States, 379 F.2d 170, 172 (10th Cir. 1967). The defendant must have knowledge that the check involved has been forged and fraudulently made. Barry v. United State......
  • McClard v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • January 8, 1968
    ...on each element of the offense from which the jury could find that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Pauldino v. United States, 379 F.2d 170 (10 Cir. 1967). "Where only circumstantial evidence is involved, it used to be stated that to sustain conviction the proof must negativ......
  • United States v. Roby
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • March 13, 1974
    ...in a case involving a bogus cashier's check, that "a false endorsement is not a criminal offense under § 2314." Pauldino v. United States, 379 F.2d 170, 172 (10th Cir. 1967).2 See also Beatty v. United States, 357 F.2d 19, 22 (10th Cir. Under the facts of the present case, however, there is......
  • United States v. Spica
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • August 1, 1969
    ...F.2d 825; Hulsey v. United States, (5 Cir. 1966) 369 F.2d 284; United States v. Metcalf, (4 Cir. 1968) 388 F.2d 440; Pauldino v. United States, (10 Cir. 1967) 379 F.2d 170. The general rule is clear and unquestioned. A crime cannot be established by evidence of separate and distinct crimes ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT