United States v. Compton

• Decision Date: 04 February 1966
• Docket Number: No. 16295.,16295.
• Citation: 355 F.2d 872
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Woodrow Wilson COMPTON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

355 F.2d 872 (1966)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Woodrow Wilson COMPTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16295.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

February 4, 1966.

John J. Hooker, Nashville, Tenn. (Tyree B. Harris, III, Nashville, Tenn., on the brief), for appellant.

Jere B. Albright, Asst. U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn. (Thomas L. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., Wallace H. Johnson, Peter R. Richards, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Fred M. Vinson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.

CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge.

Woodrow Wilson Compton, hereinafter referred to as Defendant, was indicted in the Western District of Tennessee on three counts. Count 1 charged him with violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1952; Count 2 with violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 2 and 1952; and Count 3 also with violation of Title 18, Sections 2 and 1952. Count 2 was dismissed at the request of the Prosecuting Attorney. Defendant went on trial before a jury on Counts 1 and 3. Defendant appeals.

In the Spring of 1948, Defendant moved to West Memphis, Arkansas. For a short period during 1953 and 1954, he operated a sporting goods store. Later, he became part owner of a beauty shop. Since 1953 the Defendant has been in the gambling business. Sometime in 1960, he converted a room attached to his house for use as a gambling area and equipped it with gambling devices necessary to operate a dice game. On May 26, 1962, Defendant's gambling establishment was raided by the West Memphis, Arkansas police who confiscated his gambling equipment. Following the raid, Defendant, while still a resident of West Memphis, Arkansas, frequented a gambling establishment in Tipton County, Tennessee. At this time Defendant learned that an acquaintance of his was being prosecuted for violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1952. Sometime in August or September of 1962, Defendant consulted an attorney in Arkansas, inquiring of the attorney as to the provisions of Section 1952 relative to interstate travel to commit gambling. The attorney advised him that if Defendant made a bona fide change of residence not connected with an overt act in aid of an unlawful enterprise, he would not be in violation of the statute.

On September 11, 1962, one Norris Nix, a friend and gambling associate of Defendant, purchased a farm consisting of 45 acres, including a six-room dwelling in Tipton County, Tennessee, for $27,000. The attorney who handled the transaction testified that Defendant was present when the transaction was closed, although he was unable to identify Defendant at the trial. Nix began immediately thereafter to renovate the six-room dwelling.

On September 30, 1962, Defendant rented a house in Frayser, Tennessee, a suburb of Memphis, and about 15 miles from the property purchased by Nix. Defendant moved into the house on October 2, 1962. Next day, October 3, 1962, Defendant entered negotiations with Nix for the purchase of the farm and one day later, October 4, 1962, title to the farm was transferred to Defendant. The consideration for the farm was approximately the price that Nix had paid for the property, even though Nix had done some remodeling to the premises.

Defendant admits that he intended to convert the property to a gambling place. After title was transferred to Defendant, Nix and Defendant continued the remodeling. On or about December 10, 1962, Defendant and Nix, as partners, opened the farmhouse, later to be known as Twin Oaks Club, for public gambling.

Section 1952, Title 18, U.S.C., provides in pertinent parts, as follows:

"(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, including the mail, with intent to —

"(1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or

"(2) commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity; or

"(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity,

and thereafter performs or attempts to perform any of the acts specified in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3), shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

"(b) As used in this section `unlawful activity\' means (1) any business enterprise involving gambling, * * * in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States, * *."

The questions presented to this Court are:

(1) Does the evidence support the jury's finding that Defendant possessed the necessary statutory intent at the time of his interstate travel to manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate a gambling business in violation of state law?

(2) Does 18, U.S.C., Section 1952, apply to one who changes his legal residence from one state to another with intent to establish an unlawful gambling business, and does, as a matter of fact, after changing his residence, so engage in the operation of a gambling establishment?

Addressing ourselves to the first question, we answer in the affirmative. The evidence presented to the jury was overwhelming that Defendant did possess the necessary intent required by Section 1952. By Defendant's own admission, he was a professional gambler for many years. After selling his sporting goods store in 1955 he continuously operated a gambling business, conducting a gambling establishment in his home and later expanding his gambling activity by converting a room attached to his home for use as a gambling area. He operated unmolested until a police raid of May, 1962. Thereafter he frequented a gambling casino in Tipton County, Tennessee, and later opened a gambling establishment in the same County in close proximity thereto. He consulted his attorney as to the effect of Section 1952 before moving to Tennessee. From the evidence the jury could find...