State v. Duncan, 4728
| Decision Date | 02 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 4728,4728 |
| Citation | 255 S.W.2d 430,221 Ark. 681 |
| Parties | STATE v. DUNCAN. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Ike Murry, Atty. Gen., and George E. Lusk, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
S. M. Bone, Batesville, for appellee.
Denver W. Duncan, appellee, was charged by information with the crime of feloniously selling four bales of cotton upon which the Farmers Home Administration, a government agency, held a chattel mortgage, with intent to defeat said mortgage and the debt thereby secured. The information (in its entirety) properly charged appellee with the crime of selling mortgaged property under the provisions of Ark.Stats. § 41-1928 which reads as follows:
'It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, barter, exchange or otherwise dispose of, or to remove beyond the limits of this State or of any county in which a landlord's or laborer's lien exists, or in which a lien has been created by virtue of a mortgage or deed of trust, or to which title has been retained by the vendor, any property of any kind, character or description, upon which a lien of the kind enumerated above exists or to which title still remains in the vendor: provided, such sale, barter, exchange, removal or disposal of such property be made with the intent to defeat the holder of such lien or title in the collection of the debt secured by such mortgage, laborer's or landlord's lien or retention of title.'
To the above information appellee filed, and the trial court sustained, a demurrer on the ground that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction. The reasons assigned for the lack of jurisdiction in the state court were: that the information charged appellee with cheating and defrauding the United States Government, and that therefore the United States courts have exclusive jurisdiction. The Federal statute covering the act which appellee is charged with committing is § 658, 18 U.S.C.A., which reads as follows:
'Whoever, with intent to defraud, knowingly conceals, removes, disposes of, or converts to his own use or to that of another, any property mortgaged or pledged to, or held by, the Farm Credit Administration, any Federal intermediate credit bank, or the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Farmers' Home Corporation, the Secretary of Agriculture acting through the Farmers' Home Administration, any production credit association organized under sections 1131-1134m of Title 12, or in which a Production Credit Corporation holds stock, any regional agricultural credit corporation, or any bank for cooperatives, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed $100, he shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.'
The issue thus raised being one which, as the Attorney General certified, affects the correct and uniform administration of the criminal laws of this state, this appeal is properly prosecuted.
It is stated by appellee and admitted by appellant that the acts alleged to have been done by appellee constitute an offense against the United States Government under § 658, supra. The only material difference between the State statute and the Federal statute is the punishment prescribed by each.
Appellee argues that neither the Act of Congress setting up the Farmers' Home Administration nor the Act creating the offense here involved gives any jurisdiction to the state court to enforce the Federal penal act. This contention is true but it does not reach the issue here involved. The attempt by the State here is not to enforce the Federal statute but to enforce the State statute. The fallacy in appellee's argument is that it is not necessary, in this instance, for Congress to specifically grant jurisdiction to the state courts.
There are numerous cases which hold that the same acts, constituting an offense under State and Federal statutes, can be prosecuted in both courts where there was no specific delegation of jurisdiction to the state court by the Congress. Some of these cases are: Cross v. State of North Carolina, 132 U. S. 131, 10 S.Ct. 47, 33 L.Ed. 287; Pettibone v. United States, 148 U.S. 197, 13 S.Ct. 542, 37 L.Ed. 419; Crossley v. State of California, 168 U.S. 640, 18 S.Ct. 242, 42 L.Ed. 610; Sexton v. California, 189 U.S. 319, 23 S.Ct. 543, 47 L.Ed. 833; United States v. Holt, D.C., 270 F. 639; Ex parte Hollingsworth, 83 Tex.Cr.R. 400, 203 S.W. 1102; and State v. Frach, 162 Or. 602, 94 P.2d 143.
The general rule is well stated in the Pettibone case, supra, where it was said [148 U.S. 197, 13 S.Ct. 547]:
'While offenses exclusively against the states are exclusively cognizable in the state courts, and offenses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois
...federal and state prosecutions permitted where one is for possession and the other for transportation). Arkansas. State v. Duncan, 221 Ark. 681, 255 S.W.2d 430. California. People v. McDonnell, 80 Cal. 285, 22 P. 190; People v. Candelaria, 139 Cal.App.2d 432, 294 P.2d 120; People v. Candela......
-
People v. Mezy, Docket Nos. 101689
...1971). Others rely on the federal constitution or merely cite Bartkus for the principle of dual sovereignty. State v. Duncan, 221 Ark. 681, 255 S.W.2d 430 (1953), State v. Tiche, 33 Conn.Supp. 51, 360 A.2d 135 (1976), Richardson v. State, 163 Ind.App. 222, 323 N.E.2d 291 (1975), Bell v. Sta......
-
State v. Rogers, 11322
...808 (1972). Others rely on the federal constitution or merely cite Bartkus for the principle of dual sovereignty. State v. Duncan, 221 Ark. 681, 255 S.W.2d 430 (1953); State v. Tiche, 33 Conn.Sup. 51, 360 A.2d 135 (1976); Richardson v. State, Ind.App.,323 N.E.2d 291 (1975); Bell v. State, 2......
-
Hughes v. Oklahoma State Election Bd.
...sovereignties and their right to exercise such powers cannot be impaired or abridged by any federal statutes. In State v. Duncan, 221 Ark. 681, 255 S.W.2d 430, the Supreme Court of Arkansas held that where an accused allegedly sold bales of cotton upon which an agency of the federal governm......
-
THE STRUCTURE OF CRIMINAL FEDERALISM.
...what restitution the defendant owed the Department of Veterans' Affairs after he falsified loans documents); State v. Duncan, 255 S.W.2d 430, 431-32 (Ark. 1953); State v. Frach, 94 P.2d 143, 144. 146 (Or. 1939); see also, e.g., Commonwealth v. Crawford, 254 A.3d 769, 773-74 (Pa. Super. Ct. ......