Randle v. United States

• Decision Date: 29 July 1940
• Docket Number: No. 7410.,7410.
• Citation: 72 App. DC 368,113 F.2d 945
• Parties: RANDLE v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

72 App. DC 368, 113 F.2d 945 (1940)

RANDLE v. UNITED STATES.

No. 7410.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Decided July 29, 1940.

R. H. McNeill, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

David A. Pine, U. S. Atty., and Arthur B. Caldwell, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before STEPHENS, EDGERTON, and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

The appellant, hereafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted upon a jury trial in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia of the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the Washington Asylum and Jail. The statute under which the defendant was indicted provides for the punishment of one who "by any false pretense, with intent to defraud, obtains from any person anything of value . . . ." D.C.Code (1929) tit. 6 § 85. The appeal raises questions concerning the sufficiency of the indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, the refusal to declare a mistrial because of alleged misconduct of the prosecuting attorney, the exclusion of evidence, and the correctness of an instruction given. We shall discuss each of these topics separately, stating under each such facts as are necessary to an understanding of the point raised.

I.

The indictment charged:

"That on, to wit, the nineteenth day of January, 1939, one Catherine H. Reed had a son by the name of Rufus Reed who was a student in the University of Pennsylvania.

* * *

"That on, to wit, the nineteenth day of January, 1938, there was in the District of Columbia aforesaid one Rosalyn Randle, otherwise known as Helen G. Randle, otherwise known as Helen Gertrude Davis, and hereinafter in this indictment designated and called Rosalyn Randle, who had, on previous occasions, to wit, January tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth, 1938, lectured in the Shoreham Hotel, in said District, and that the said Catherine H. Reed attended said lectures and met and became acquainted with the said Rosalyn Randle; and that at the said lectures and in the hearing and presence of the said Catherine H. Reed, the said Rosalyn Randle stated and represented herself to be an international authority and lecturer on nutrition and psychology and a mental healer; and that thereafter in the District of Columbia aforesaid, and on the nineteenth day of January, 1938, the said Rosalyn Randle unlawfully, knowingly, designedly and with intent to defraud, feloniously did pretend and represent to the said Catherine H. Reed, then and there being, that she, the said Rosalyn Randle, had many years of experience as a healer and had specialized in the treatment of mental cases and was particularly qualified and equipped to diagnose and treat the said son of the said Catherine H. Reed, and that the said Rufus Reed was weak willed and had an unbalanced mind and that he had a suicidal complex, and that she had received letters from the said University of Pennsylvania authorities, including one R. A. Brotemarkle, in which they had advised her that they, the said authorities of the University of Pennsylvania, did not wish the said Rufus Reed to remain in the said University in his diseased condition as his presence there created a dangerous condition for the entire student body, and that the said authorities had been forced by the danger of the situation to appoint a student guard to accompany the said Rufus Reed at all times, and that the said University authorities had sent her, the said Rosalyn Randle, a picture of the brain of the said Rufus Reed, and that said picture showed malformation of said brain, and that the University officials had requested her to take charge of the boy due to his dangerous mental condition, and that the said Rosalyn Randle was well known among the authorities of the University of Pennsylvania and that she had handled many mental cases of this particular type, and that the said Rosalyn Randle had been hired by the well known and wealthy Reynolds family of North Carolina, to accompany the son and heir of the Reynolds tobacco millions to the Island of Crete, to treat the said son for exactly the same type of mental ailments.

"And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present:

"That she, the said Rosalyn Randle then and there offered for a fee of five hundred dollars, to cure the said Rufus Reed of this mental ailment by prescribing certain diets and certain mental treatments, and also to slow down the action of the brain and to increase his height by at least two inches.

"And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present:

"That by color and means of which false pretenses and representations aforesaid, the said Rosalyn Randle, did, on the said nineteenth day of January, 1938, and at and within the said District of Columbia, with intent to defraud, feloniously, knowingly and designedly obtain from the said Catherne H. Reed, five hundred dollars in money, of the value of five hundred dollars, of the money and property of the said Catherine H. Reed, which said five hundred dollars in money, of the value aforesaid, the said Catherine H. Reed, relying upon the false pretenses and representations aforesaid, which she believed to be true, and being deceived thereby, did then and there give to the said Rosalyn Randle.

"Whereas in truth and in fact, the said Rosalyn Randle was not an international authority and lecturer on nutrition and psychology, nor a mental healer, nor was the said Rufus Reed weak willed, nor had he an unbalanced mind, nor had he a suicidal complex, nor had she, the said Rosalyn Randle, received letters from the said University of Pennsylvania authorities, including one R. A. Brotemarkle, in which they had advised her that they, the said authorities of the University of Pennsylvania, did not wish the said Rufus Reed to remain in the said University, nor had his presence there created a dangerous condition for the entire student body, nor had the said authorities, including the said R. A. Brotemarkle, stated to her in any form or in any manner that his presence in the University created a dangerous condition for the entire student body of said University of Pennsylvania, nor had the said University authorities been forced, or stated that they had been forced, by the danger of the situation to appoint a student guard to accompany the said Rufus Reed at any time, nor had they, the said University authorities, including the said R. A. Brotemarkle, sent her, the said Rosalyn Randle, a picture of the brain of the said Rufus Reed, or a picture of said brain showing any malformation thereof, nor had the university officials, including the said R. A. Brotemarkle, requested her to take charge of the boy due to his mental condition, nor was the said Rosalyn Randle well known among the University of Pennsylvania authorities, nor had she handled many mental cases of this or any other type, nor had the said Rosalyn Randle been hired by the Reynolds family of North Carolina or any other family of North Carolina, to accompany their son to the Island of Crete and treat the said son for any mental ailment, as she, the said Rosalyn Randle, at the time of the making by her of the said false pretenses and representations aforesaid, then and there well knew; against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and government of the said United States."

The defendant demurred to the indictment and the trial court overruled the demurrer.

The defendant contends that this was error because the real basis of the prosecution is found in that paragraph of the indictment charging:

"That she, the said Rosalyn Randle then and there offered for a fee of five hundred dollars, to cure the said Rufus Reed of this mental ailment by prescribing certain diets and certain mental treatments, and also to slow down the action of the brain and to increase his height by at least two inches." The defendant urges that the indictment thus describes but an undertaking to be performed in the future. She relies upon the familiar proposition that to be the proper subject of an indictment for obtaining money by false pretenses the misrepresentations must relate to present or past facts, as distinguished from something to take place in the future. The proposition stated is correct, but the argument ignores all of the allegations of the indictment except those in the paragraph last above quoted. The indictment must be read as a whole, and so read it plainly describes numerous false representations of present and past facts, and it charges that their falsity was known to the defendant, that they were made with the intention of defrauding Mrs. Reed, and that she believed them and acted upon them by paying money to the defendant. Thus the indictment adequately charged a public offense. That false representations of present or past facts become effective only by being coupled with a false promise does not take a case out of the operation of the statute. Clagett v. United States, 1923, 53 App.D. C. 134, 289 F. 532; State v. Wren, 1933, 333 Mo. 575, 62 S.W.2d 853; Cook v. State, 1936, 170 Tenn. 245, 94 S.W.2d 386; State v. Parkinson, 1935, 181 Wash. 69, 41 P.2d 1095; 22 Am.Jur. 452; Note, 1923, 24 A.L.R. 397, 401; Note, 1922, 17 A.L.R. 199, 201; Note, 1907, 7 L.R.A.,N.S., 278.

In Clagett v. United States the defendant was convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses. The evidence for the Government was that the defendant had falsely represented that he had money in a bank — by delivering to the prosecuting witness a check thereon and thereby obtaining from the prosecuting witness, who cashed the check for him, the face amount thereof. The defendant testified in his own behalf that the transaction was a loan, that he had given the check to the prosecuting witness for security only, with the understanding that it was to...