La Salle v. United States, 3292.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 3292.,3292. |
| Citation | 155 F.2d 452 |
| Parties | LA SALLE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Edward Rooney, of Topeka, Kan. (Jacob A. Dickinson, of Topeka, Kan., and Dallas M. Potts, of Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellant.
Randolph Carpenter, U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan. (Sewall Key, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. Louis Monarch and Ernest R. Mortenson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for the United States.
Before PHILLIPS, HUXMAN, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
An indictment, returned against LaSalle, charged that on June 21, 1945, in the Second Division of the District of Kansas, a grand jury of the United States, which had been duly and regularly impaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire into offenses against the United States committed in the District of Kansas, was investigating a charge against certain named persons accused of violating § 145(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 145(b), and that LaSalle appeared as a witness before the grand jury. That an oath was required, was duly administered to LaSalle and taken by him, was sufficiently alleged.
It further charged that upon such investigation before the grand jury, "the fact as to whether Joe LaSalle on or about the night of September 30, 1944, and the morning of October 1, 1944, was present at a conversation in the County Jail of Sedgwick County, and did, after said conversation, in the company of others, drive to a certain field in Sedgwick where certain liquor was obtained and placed in an automobile belonging to one Robert Brunch were material and relevant matters and questions relating" to the charge being investigated by the grand jury; that LaSalle, in answer to the following questions, willfully, falsely, and corruptly testified as follows:
; and "that Joe LaSalle at the time he made the statements aforesaid then and there knew that such statements were * * * false and untrue in that he had been present at the County Jail of Sedgwick County with the persons referred to and thereafter did drive to a certain field in Sedgwick County where liquor was loaded into an automobile belonging to Robert Brunch."
LaSalle entered a plea of not guilty to the indictment and waived trial by jury. On the day the case came on for trial, LaSalle asked leave to withdraw his plea in order that he might file a motion to quash the indictment. Leave was denied. The trial proceeded. After the identification of the first witness for the United States, LaSalle objected to the introduction of any evidence on the ground that the indictment did not charge any offense against the United States. The objection was overruled. Thereupon, LaSalle entered a plea of guilty. LaSalle also challenged the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Alu, 190
...v. United States, 8 Cir. 1955, 218 F.2d 454, 458, certiorari denied 349 U.S. 923, 75 S.Ct. 665, 99 L.Ed. 1255; La Salle v. United States, 10 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 452, 454. Cf. United States v. Moran, 2 Cir., 1952, 194 F.2d 623, 626, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 965, 72 S.Ct. 1058, 96 L.Ed. 13......
-
U.S. v. Pommerening, s. 73-1937
...materiality of false declarations is sufficiently charged if the facts alleged show such statements were material. LaSalle v. United States,155 F.2d 452 (10th Cir. 1946). The facts show unequivocally that appellants' false statements were material to the crime charged, and hence the perjury......
-
United States v. Miller
...of the perjury statute, are stated therein. See United States v. Harris, 311 U.S. 292, 61 S.Ct. 217, 85 L.Ed. 196; LaSalle v. United States, 10 Cir., 155 F.2d 452. It is the second ground, to which the remaining part of this opinion is devoted, upon which the defendant chiefly relies to nul......
-
United States v. Edmondson
...of the false statements is sufficiently charged, if the facts alleged show such statements were material." La Salle v. United States, 10 Cir. 1946, 155 F.2d 452, 454. Accord: Travis v. United States, 10 Cir. 1941, 123 F.2d 268, 270; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir. 1957, 239 F.2d 748, 5 11......