Serio v. United States

• Decision Date: 07 April 1967
• Docket Number: No. 19819.,19819.
• Citation: 126 US App. DC 297,377 F.2d 936
• Parties: August J. SERIO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

126 US App. DC 297, 377 F.2d 936 (1967)

August J. SERIO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19819.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued January 18, 1967.

Decided April 7, 1967.

Mr. Frederick S. Hird, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.

Mr. James A. Strazzella, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Donald S. Smith, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAHY and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

FAHY, Circuit Judge:

Appellant was convicted on all counts of an indictment charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 500, four counts charging false altering in material respects of four postal money orders, and four counts charging appellant and George R. LaShine with uttering the same money orders. They were tried jointly. LaShine's conviction on the uttering counts has been affirmed by this court. LaShine v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 374 F.2d 285. Appellant's sentences under the four altering counts are concurrent but are consecutive to his concurrent sentences under the uttering counts.

We are urged to reverse because of the use at the joint trial of LaShine's confession. The manner in which this question arises does not enable us to apply the principles set forth, for example, in the recent case of United States v. Bozza, 365 F.2d 206, 214-218 (2d Cir.), relied upon by appellant, for there defendants objected to the admission of a co-defendant's confession and moved for severance. Here, in contrast, Serio's trial counsel consented to the use of LaShine's confession against LaShine, provided certain specified conditions designed to prevent prejudice to Serio were met, which was done.¹ Accordingly the question is whether the admission of this evidence was plain error affecting substantial rights within the meaning of Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.P.² In applying this rule we are not confined to consideration of the alleged error in isolation from other circumstances. Crawford v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 237, 198 F. 2d 976, 979. Cf. Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705. A significant factor is the explicit consent of counsel to admission of the evidence upon conditions he specified. His judgment that prejudice to appellant was avoided in this manner is entitled to weight, though one might differ with it; and his judgment, when considered with the evidence as a whole, deters us from reversing under Rule 52(b).

A more basic contention is that the United States failed to prove that appellant (1) altered the money orders, (2) altered them in this jurisdiction, and (3) aided and abetted LaShine in uttering them.

Considering first the issue of aiding and abetting, there was evidence indicative of the situation we now outline. On April 25, 1964, the orders were issued in Baltimore for two dollars each. On the same day they were presented by LaShine and cashed at liquor stores in Washington after three of them had been raised to eighty-two dollars and one to seventy-two dollars. The name of the purchaser appears in blocked handwriting on each as "Mrs. Rosia Lorenzo," 2238 Coral Thorn Road, located in Baltimore; and the payee is similarly written in as "Angelo C. Lorenzo." Appellant, so the evidence indicated, had written these names on the face of the orders, and his fingerprint appeared on one of them.³ There was evidence the endorsements were in LaShine's handwriting, and he was identified as the person for whom one of the orders was cashed. LaShine identified himself as the person named as payee by means of a Maryland driver's license issued to Angelo Lorenzo. This license, the evidence indicated, had been stolen.

In the above manner there was brought together a set of circumstances which supports the trial court's denial of appellant's motion for acquittal as an aider and abettor to the uttering by LaShine. The evidence of appellant's close and non-innocent association with the money orders the same day they were cashed in Washington, including evidence indicating they had been readied by him in part for uttering, could well lead reasonable men to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of aiding and abetting the uttering.⁴

As to the convictions for altering the orders, the indictment of course placed venue in this jurisdiction. The evidence, however, fails to establish this. It indicates that Maryland, where the orders were issued and where appellant resided, was the place they were altered. Angelo Lorenzo, whose name was forged upon the orders, also resided in Maryland. The Lorenzo driver's license, above referred to, was issued in Maryland. At no relevant times is appellant placed in this jurisdiction.

Faced with this factual situation as to venue, the United States contends there is a presumption "or at least an inference" that the altering occurred in this jurisdiction because the uttering occurred here. There is decisional support for a presumption that alteration of an instrument such as a money order occurred where it was uttered, provided the uttering was by the same person charged with the alteration, or the one so charged is shown to have been in possession of the instrument where the uttering occurred. True, in Judge Story's instructions to the jury in United States v. Britton, 24 Fed.Cas. 1239, 1241 (No. 14,650) (C.C.D.Mass.1822), he stated there was a presumption an instrument was forged where it is first found in its altered state or uttered, but the defendant there had possession of the instrument when he unsuccessfully presented it for payment.⁵ Other authorities state the presumption as requiring possession by the accused in the jurisdiction where he is charged with having made the alteration. 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (12th ed.) § 92; 3 Greenleaf, Evidence 120-21. Cf. The King v. Parkes & Brown, 2 Leach 776, 168 Eng.Rep. 488 (1797). And in Read v. United States, 55 App.D.C. 43, 45, 299 F. 918, 922, cert. denied, 267 U.S. 596, 45 S.Ct. 352, 69 L.Ed. 805, though it is not certain the court resorted to the presumption, it appears defendant had possession in this jurisdiction. In United States v. Di Pietroantonio, 289 F.2d 122 (2d Cir.), however, the court upheld venue in the District of Connecticut although defendant's possession in that District was not shown by direct evidence. But in so holding the court did not rely upon a presumption attaching to the place the instruments were uttered; the court relied upon circumstantial evidence deemed sufficient to enable the trier of the facts to have inferred that the altering had been done in Connecticut. In our case the evidence points to the altering having been done in Maryland. There is accordingly no room for the presumption, in the absence of possession of the orders by appellant in this jurisdiction. We add that the presumption which is supported by decisional law should not be expanded to cover such a case as this where two persons participated in such circumstances as to preclude a presumption that the documents were altered by one participant in this jurisdiction because another defendant succeeded in uttering them here.

In Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Ed. 1519, the Supreme Court, in pointing out that Congress, subject to the limits of due process, may establish rules of evidence for the federal courts, and see Chapman v. State of California, supra, stated that when Congress legislates an evidentiary presumption there must be "a rational connection between the facts proved and the fact presumed."⁶ No less is essential for a valid presumption of fact initiated by the judiciary. In the present case the facts indicating that the alterations occurred in Maryland prelude a rational inference that because LaShine uttered the instruments in Washington, Serio altered them here. The presence of the rational relationship is a matter of judgment, informed, however, as best can be by knowledge and experience.

The difficulty of detecting the locale of the alteration of an instrument leads to pressure upon the courts to permit a presumption in aid of proof; but as the Supreme Court held in Tot, quoted supra, note 6, the need for a rational relationship may not for this reason be dispensed with; the difference between the conclusion and the fact proved cannot be bridged presumptively where to do so would be arbitrary. Upon this reasoning the presumption relied upon by the Government does not apply in this case, and in its absence there is a failure of proof that the altering occurred in this jurisdiction.

Proof of venue in the District of Columbia was essential to the District Court's jurisdiction over the charges of altering by appellant. Two provisions of the Constitution itself require such proof:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed * * *.

U.S.Const. Art. III, § 2, cl. 3.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district, wherein the crime shall have been committed * * *.

U.S.Const. Amend VI. Of course these venue provisions of the Constitution cannot be dispensed with as merely procedural or technical. Travis v. United States, 364 U.S. 631, 634, 81 S.Ct. 358, 5 L.Ed.2d 340; United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273, 276, 65 S.Ct. 249, 89 L.Ed. 236.

Since venue for trial of the altering counts in this jurisdiction was not established we do not reach the separate issue whether alteration by appellant itself was established by the evidence. We hold only it was not established he altered the instruments in this jurisdiction.

Affirmed as to the uttering counts, 2, 4, 6, 8.

Reversed as to the altering counts, 1, 3, 5, 7.

BURGER, Circuit Judge (concurring in...