Sanford v. United States, 13684.
| Decision Date | 15 July 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 13684.,13684. |
| Citation | 169 F.2d 71 |
| Parties | SANFORD v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Norman Sanford, Jr., pro se.
Sam M. Wear, U. S. Atty., and Thomas A. Costolow, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before GARDNER, WOODROUGH, and COLLET, Circuit Judges.
The appellant is serving a sentence imposed upon him on his plea of guilty to an indictment which charged him and others named therein with violation of the Federal Kidnapping Act, § 1, 18 U.S.C.A. § 408 a, the relevant part of which reads:
"Whoever shall knowingly transport or cause to be transported, or aid or abet in transporting, in interstate or foreign commerce, any person who shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnaped, abducted, or carried away by any means whatsoever and held for ransom or reward or otherwise, except, in the case of a minor, by a parent thereof, shall, upon conviction, be punished * * *."
After the expiration of the term of court at which he was sentenced appellant filed a motion in the same court to vacate the judgment on the ground that the indictment did not charge an offense within the provisions of the Act and was therefore void. The court accorded a hearing on the motion and on full consideration denied it, setting forth the reasons and citing the cases in a carefully prepared opinion filed in the case. This appeal is taken to reverse the ruling.
The charge of the indictment attacked by appellant was that this appellant and others "did wilfully, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously transport and cause to be transported in interstate commerce from Kansas City, Kansas, to a point near 12th and Summit Streets in Kansas City, Missouri, one David M. Edwards, who had theretofore been unlawfully seized, abducted, kidnaped and carried away in a motor vehicle by force and by threats and against his will, by them, the said Norman Sanford, Jr. and others for the purpose of robbing the person of him, the said David M. Edwards * * *."
The appellant contends that the indictment did not charge the offense defined in the statute because it did not contain an allegation that the David M. Edwards said to have been kidnapped and transported in interstate commerce was "held" for the said purpose of robbing his person.
The Supreme Court considered the meaning and scope of the Act as amended, in Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 56 S.Ct. 395, 397, 80 L.Ed. 522, and settled that the Act is not limited to kidnappings involving transportation in interstate commerce committed for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solet v. M/V CAPT. HV DUFRENE, Civ. A. No. 67-1713.
......Dufrene, in personam, Defendants. . Civ. A. No. 67-1713. . United States District Court E. D. Louisiana, New Orleans Division. . August 19, ......
-
Hall v. United States
...further interstate transportation of the victim, and the framing of the indictment was adequate to imply that. Cf. Sanford v. United States, 169 F.2d 71 (8th Cir. 1948). Because we conclude that this indictment sufficiently apprised Hall of the charges that he need prepare to meet, United S......
-
Burns v. United States
...455, 459, 66 S.Ct. 233, 90 L.Ed. 198 (1946), and applied in Poindexter v. United States, (8th Cir.1943) 139 F.2d 158, Sanford v. United States, (8th Cir.1948) 169 F.2d 71, Hess v. United States, (8th Cir.1958) 254 F.2d 578, and Wegman v. United States, (8th Cir.1959) 272 F.2d Petitioner all......
-
Hess v. United States, 15831.
...extends to persons who have been kidnapped and held, not only for reward, but for any other reason. This Court, in Sanford v. United States, 8 Cir., 169 F.2d 71, being concerned with a similar contention, held contrary to the theory advanced by As we understand the brief of appellants, they......