Reno v. United States
Decision Date | 20 June 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 19673.,19673. |
Citation | 317 F.2d 499 |
Parties | William Alfred RENO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Richard R. Booth, Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Alfred E. Sapp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Edith House, U. S. Atty. Southern District of Florida, for appellee.
Before RIVES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges, and BOOTLE, District Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment finding the defendant guilty "of the offense of knowingly and willfully conspiring to harbour and conceal an alien not lawfully entitled to enter or reside within the United States, well knowing and having reasonable grounds to believe that the entry of said alien into the United States occurred less than three years prior to May 4, 1961; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, as charged in the Indictment."
The only questions presented concern the sufficiency of the indictment, as stated in the appellant's brief:
The indictment contains a single count which commences as follows:
defendants herein, did willfully, feloniously and knowingly conspire, combine, confederate and agree together and with ANGELO NICOSIA, co-conspirator but not defendant named herein, and with divers other persons to the Grand Jury unknown, to commit an offense against the United States, to-wit: to violate Title 8, United States Code, Section 1324, that is to say, they did knowingly and willfully conceal, harbor and shield from detection, and did knowingly and willfully attempt to conceal, harbor and shield from detection, in Dade County within the Southern District of Florida, including various buildings and means of transportation therein, EMANUELE NICOSIA, an alien not lawfully entitled to enter or reside within the United States, well knowing and having reasonable grounds to believe that the entry of the said EMANUELE NICOSIA into the United States occurred less than three years prior thereto and they did transport and move, and did attempt to transport and move within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, the said EMANUELE NICOSIA; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
"That in furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy and for the purpose and object of effecting the said conspiracy, the following overt acts were committed: * * *."
There follow seven separately numbered charges of overt acts.
Upon arraignment on November 9, 1961, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty.The attorney then representing the defendant was permitted to withdraw from the case on February 9, 1962.On February 13, 1962, other counsel appeared and moved to dismiss the indictment on the following grounds:
The trial commenced two days later, at which time the court denied the motion to dismiss after the following colloquy:
The trial was limited strictly to the conspiracy charge.The United States Attorney began his opening statement to the jury as follows:
"As the Court explained to you in the beginning, this is a conspiracy case where the Government is charging these two men, Mr. Reno and Mr. Moore, with a conspiracy to violate the Immigration Laws; that is a conspiracy to harbor and transport an alien, the alien in this case being an Italian seaman named Emanuele Nicosia, who came into this country aboard a ship, as our evidence will show, in July of 1960."
The same limitation was repeated several times in the court's charge to the jury, culminating as follows: "Now, finally keep in mind this is a case charging conspiracy as I said, an agreement between two or more persons to violate the law in the respects as the indictment charges, and there is no other charge involved — just plain conspiracy."
If it be assumed arguendo that the indictment is duplicitous, the district court was correct in observing that, "Duplicity is not a fatal defect."As said in United States v. Goodman, 5 Cir., 1960, 285 F.2d 378, 380: The trial was limited to the charge of conspiracy and any possible duplicity of the indictment was harmless.
In our opinion, however, the indictment is not duplicitous.The charge of commission of the substantive offense does not detract from the conspiracy — "* * * it is punishable as conspiracy, though the intended crime be accomplished."United States v. Rabinowich, 1915, 238 U.S. 78, 86, 35 S.Ct. 682, 684, 59 L.Ed. 1211.See alsoPinkerton v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 640, 643, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489.As said in Heike v. United States, 1913, 227 U.S. 131, 144, 33 S.Ct. 226, 229, 57 L.Ed. 450, "At all events the liability for conspiracy is not taken away by its success — that is, by the accomplishment of the substantive offence at which the conspiracy aims."
Several cases discussing similarly worded conspiracy indictments have held that the allegation of acts which would amount to commission of the substantive offense was merely descriptive of the conspiracy.United States v. Illinois Alcohol Co., 2 Cir., 1930, 45 F.2d 145, 148;Blum v. United States, 6 Cir., 1931, 46 F.2d 850, 851;United States v. McKieghan, E.D.Mich., 1932, 58 F.2d 298, 302;United States v. J. R. Watkins Co., D.C. Minn., 1954, 120 F.Supp. 154, 157.See alsoMillard v. United States, 5 Cir., 1945, 148 F.2d 154, 155, 156;Braswell v. United States, 5 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 597, 599;Beauchamp v. United States, 6 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 413, 415.
The appellant argues also that the indictment is so vague and ambiguous as to make it impossible to determine the meaning of a verdict of guilty, as expressed in appellant's brief: "That is, by its verdict did the jury mean to say that they had found the defendant guilty of the crime of conspiracy or did the jury find him guilty of concealing or transporting an alien not duly admitted."
We do not agree.The indictment clearly charges a conspiracy alone, and was expressly limited to that charge throughout the trial and by the court's instructions to the jury.
On question 2, the basis of appellant's argument that the indictment does not charge an offense against the United States is summarized in his brief as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Com. v. Favulli
...Medrano v. United States, 285 F.2d 23, 26 fn. 3 (9th Cir.), cert. den. 366 U.S. 968, 81 S.Ct. 1931, 6 L.Ed.2d 1258; Reno v. United States, 317 F.2d 499, 503--504 (5th Cir.), cert. den. 375 U.S. 828, 84 S.Ct. 72, 11 L.Ed.2d 60; State ex rel. Durner, Sheriff v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 243--244,......
-
United States v. Kohne
...287 U.S. 112, 121-122, 53 S.Ct. 35, 77 L.Ed. 206 (1932); Baker v. United States, 393 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1968); Reno v. United States, 317 F.2d 499, 503 (5th Cir. 1963); Pifer v. United States, 245 F.2d 704, 705 (4th Cir. 1957); United States v. Zeuli, 137 F.2d 845, 846 (2d Cir. 1943); Unite......
-
United States v. Baker
...294 F.2d 74 (9th Cir. 1961). 80 United States v. Offutt, 75 U.S.App. D.C. 344, 346, 127 F.2d 336, 338 (1942); Reno v. United States, 317 F.2d 499, 505 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 828, 84 S.Ct. 72, 11 L.Ed.2d 60 (1963); United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 86, 35 S.Ct. 682, 5......
-
United States v. Wolfson
...its objects, is but one offense. Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204, 210, 39 S.Ct. 249, 63 L.Ed. 561 (1919); Reno v. United States, 317 F.2d 499, 502 (C.A.5, 1963) cert. den. 375 U.S. 828, 84 S.Ct. 72, 11 L.Ed.2d 60; United States v. Boisvert, 187 F.Supp. 781, 784 (D.C.R.I., 1960). Whi......