U.S. v. DeFilippis

• Decision Date: 02 March 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-1155,80-1155
• Citation: 637 F.2d 1370
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brinda DeFILIPPIS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1370

637 F.2d 1370

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brinda DeFILIPPIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80-1155.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 1980.

Decided March 2, 1981.

John W. Tapp, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant.

Kenneth Parker, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Before VAN DUSEN ^*, Senior Circuit Judge, ANDERSON and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge:

Brinda DeFilippis was convicted on six counts of passing and uttering altered United States obligations with the intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. On appeal she contends that her conduct did not violate the statute, and that the jury instructions setting forth the elements of a section 472 violation were improper. She further contends that this court should remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether it was an element of her husband's plea agreement that charges against her be dismissed. We affirm the conviction.

FACTS

Brinda DeFilippis and her husband Lawrence concocted a simple scheme to defraud local merchants, using altered one-dollar bills. Brinda and/or Lawrence would enter a store and make a small purchase, paying with a twenty-dollar bill. The store clerk would usually return change of a ten, five and several one-dollar bills. The DeFilippises would then walk away from the counter, exchange the good ten-dollar bill for a previously prepared one-dollar bill with the end of a ten-dollar bill taped over it, and return to the counter claiming that the clerk had mistakenly given them the altered bill. Although several clerks who testified at trial indicated that they were uncertain whether the altered bill came from their cash register, they generally exchanged the altered bill for a genuine ten. Thus, the DeFilippises would defraud a merchant out of nine dollars every time they successfully executed this scheme. ¹

Several store clerks became suspicious of this scheme and notified the police. After an investigation, Brinda and Lawrence were indicted by the Grand Jury for the Western District of Washington, which charged them with eight counts of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 472 and 2, passing and uttering altered obligations of the United States with the intent to defraud. ² On August 3, 1979, Lawrence appeared before Judge Tanner represented by counsel Samuel Fancher, and pled guilty to one count of the indictment. Under the express terms of the plea agreement, the United States agreed to drop the other seven counts and to stand mute regarding sentencing in return for Lawrence's plea. The court sentenced Lawrence to a $500 fine and ten years imprisonment, with nine years and six months suspended. Lawrence was placed on probation after serving six months in jail.

Brinda's case was referred to the pretrial diversion program, but the Probation Office eventually determined that she was ineligible because of misrepresentations she made regarding her criminal history. Her case was therefore transferred to the district court, and trial before Judge Tanner commenced on January 28, 1980. On the morning of trial, Brinda's counsel, Irwin Schwartz, claimed that charges should be dismissed against Brinda pursuant to a promise the United States Attorney allegedly made as part of Lawrence's plea agreement. Judge Tanner examined the transcript of Lawrence's plea proceedings, concluded that the parties made no agreement regarding Brinda, and denied Brinda's request for oral testimony on the matter.

Brinda's case went to trial, and the jury found her guilty on the remaining six counts of the indictment. ³ The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Brinda on three years probation for each count, sentences to run concurrently. Brinda admits the details of the scheme outlined above, but raises three contentions on appeal: (1) that 18 U.S.C. § 472 does not apply to her conduct; (2) that the jury instructions providing for conviction on either passing or uttering necessitate reversal; and (3) that the case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Brinda's allegation that Lawrence bargained for the dismissal of charges against Brinda.

I. APPLICABILITY OF § 472

Under its specific terms, section 472 prohibits passing or uttering of an "altered obligation or other security," with the intent to defraud. ⁴ DeFilippis does not dispute that she and her husband passed altered one-dollar bills with an intent to defraud. Nevertheless, she contends that section 472 does not apply because under her scheme, she never represented that the altered bill was genuine, and there was never any attempt to put the bill into circulation as money. On the contrary, the scheme depended on the fact that the bill was bogus and that the store clerk was made aware of the alteration.

Most prosecutions under section 472 involve the typical counterfeiting scheme, where the person passing the bill must represent that it is genuine in order to be successful. See United States v. McCall, 592 F.2d 1066, 1067 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 936, 99 S.Ct. 2061, 60 L.Ed.2d 665 (1979). Nowhere in the statute, however, is there any language requiring a representation of genuineness. See United States v. Cluchette, 465 F.2d 749, 752 (9th Cir. 1972) (section 472 convictions sustained even though defendant represented that the bills were not genuine). DeFilippis' development of an apparently novel scheme does not absolve her from liability; her conduct is still prohibited by the statute. To sustain a section 472 conviction under a passing theory, ⁵ all the government must prove is that the defendant passed an altered or counterfeit bill, knew it was altered or counterfeit, and passed it with an intent to deceive. McCall, 592 F.2d at 1068. This test is the same as set forth in Jury Instruction 9, upon which DeFilippis was convicted.

DeFilippis contends that passing, like uttering, requires some attempt to put the passed bill into circulation. There are no recent cases decided under section 472, however, that specifically add this requirement for passing. The cases cited by DeFilippis merely demonstrate that typical section 472 cases involve an attempt to put a bogus note into circulation. See, e. g., United States v. Holmes, 453 F.2d 950 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 908, 92 S.Ct. 1618, 31 L.Ed.2d 819 (1972).

The key element of section 472 is its mens rea, the specific intent to defraud. See United States v. Jiminez-Serrato, 451 F.2d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 1971). The language of the statute is broad enough to prohibit any scheme involving altered federal reserve notes when they are used with an intent to defraud, and we decline to add the statutory gloss requested by DeFilippis. As the Fifth Circuit has noted, the government has an interest in preventing the fraudulent use of any of its services, and the sanctions of section 472 "should be applied when the physical integrity of the currency is challenged in any way." Barbee v. United States, 392 F.2d 532, 536 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 935, 88 S.Ct. 1849, 20 L.Ed.2d 855 (1968). DeFilippis' scheme fell within the proscription of the statute.

II. PROPRIETY OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS

The court stated that the first element of a section 472 violation was satisfied if the defendant "passed or uttered an altered United States Federal Reserve Note ...." Jury Instruction 9 (emphasis added). Jury Instruction 7 defined passing as "putting it (a note) off in payment or exchange," and uttering as requiring an intent or offer to pass a note, coupled with "a declaration that it is good." ⁶ Because there was no claim of genuineness in the DeFilippis scheme, it is clear that passing is the only possible means of section 472 violation under the facts of this case.

DeFilippis contends, however, that because there was no evidence presented on uttering and the instruction was given in the alternative, the jury may have convicted on a ground unsupported by the evidence. The government conceded that there was no evidence to support a conviction for uttering, and at trial agreed with the defendant's request to strike that part of the instruction. Nevertheless, the court gave both the passing and uttering instructions, apparently because both means were listed in the indictment. ⁷ While we believe that the court should not have given the uttering instruction, any resulting error was harmless under the facts of this case. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a); United States v. Strand, 574 F.2d 993, 995 n.1 (9th Cir. 1978).

We note initially that it is extremely unlikely that any juror could have found a "declaration that it is good" as required by the jury instruction. Both parties agree that no such declaration was ever made, and a juror would have had to disregard totally the evidence presented to find a declaration. In United States v. Clavey, 565 F.2d 111, 116 (7th Cir. 1977), modified on other grounds, 578 F.2d 1219 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 954, 99 S.Ct. 954, 58 L.Ed.2d 345 (1978), the defendant was on trial for failure to report income on his tax returns. The trial court instructed the jury on the taxable status of political campaign funds diverted to personal use. The defendant objected to the instruction, and both parties agreed that there was no evidence to support the instruction. Nevertheless, on appeal the court, reasoning that "(b)ecause there was no evidence that campaign funds were ever diverted to Clavey's personal use, the jury could not have convicted Clavey on the basis of the campaign fund instruction," held that inclusion of the instruction was harmless. ⁸ Id. In the instant case, because there was no evidence of any declaration, the jury could not have convicted on the uttering instruction.

Furthermore, even if a juror could have conceivably found that DeFilippis made a declaration that the note was...