Russell v. United States
| Decision Date | 04 April 1921 |
| Docket Number | 3598. |
| Citation | 271 F. 684 |
| Parties | RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James A. Russell was convicted of falsely assuming and pretending to be a United States officer, and he brings error. Affirmed.
John F Dore and J. L. Finch, both of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff in error.
Robert C. Saunders, U.S. Atty., and Francis C. Reagan, Asst. U.S Atty., both of Seattle, Wash.
Before GILBERT and HUNT, Circuit Judges, and WOLVERTON, District judge.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of violation of section 32 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. Sec. 10196). The indictment charged that, with intent to defraud Julius Taylor, the plaintiff in error on a day named--
'did then and there falsely assume and pretend to be an officer acting under the authority of the United States, to wit, a revenue officer and employe, and in such pretended character did falsely demand and obtain from him, the said Julius Taylor, a sum of money, to wit, $80.'
There was evidence that, in company with another, the plaintiff in error went to the apartment of Julius Taylor and said 'We are from the federal government,' and that the plaintiff in error pulled back his coat and showed a badge, and stated that he understood that Taylor had liquor in his apartment, that the plaintiff in error and his companion then started to search the place, that Taylor, after laying $80 on the table, told the plaintiff in error that if that would do them any good he would call the thing square, and that the plaintiff in error took the $80 and left. The plaintiff in error testified that at the time of the alleged offense he was employed by the United States Navy Department as a timber inspector, and the badge which had been issued to him as such inspector was placed in evidence.
It is assigned as error that the trial court overruled the motion of the plaintiff in error for a directed verdict of acquittal. The argument is that, inasmuch as the plaintiff in error was in fact an officer employed by the United States Navy Department, he could not be held guilty of the offense of assuming or pretending to be an officer and employe acting under the authority of the United States. But the clear meaning of the representation which he made to Taylor was that he was an officer acting under the authority of the government to search premises for intoxicating liquors, and the evidence leaves no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thyfault
...which is an essential element of the offense. Lamar v. United States, 241 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 535, 60 L.Ed. 912 (1916); Russell v. United States, 271 F. 684 (9 Cir. 1921); Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, § 592 at 334 (1957); 32 Am.Jur.2d., False Personation, § 6 In this case defendants......
-
U.S.A v. Roe
...of what the person's actual position may be. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also recognized this point in Russell v. United States, 271 F. 684 (9th Cir.1921) (applying a predecessor statute to § 912). There, a timber inspector employed by the United States Navy Department was charged wi......
-
Thomas v. United States
...dignity of the service itself. * * *" Cf. United States v. Lepowitch, 318 U.S. 702, 704, 63 S.Ct. 914, 87 L.Ed. 1091; Russell v. United States, 9 Cir., 271 F. 684, 685. The pertinent portions of the agreed statement of facts are that the testimony was uncontradicted that a telephone call wa......
-
People v. Rinehart, Gen. Nos. 50560--50563
...watchman. That defendant was a watchman is an undisputed fact in the record. The State in its brief cites the case of Russell v. United States, 271 F. 684 (9th Cir. 1921), for the proposition that showing of a badge or uniform is sufficient to constitute impersonating an officer. In that ca......