United States v. Crimmins
| Decision Date | 03 November 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 29.,29. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CRIMMINS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Roger O. Baldwin, of Syracuse, N. Y., for appellant.
Mathias F. Correa, U. S. Atty., and John C. Walsh, both of New York City, for appellee.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
The accused in this case was convicted of a conspiracy to transport stolen securities in interstate commerce § 415, Title 18, U.S.C.A. The prosecution proved that nine of the ten persons indicted had been carrying on a joint enterprise in the City of New York of disposing of stolen bonds, some of which were stolen in other states. Crimmins was the tenth defendant, and all ten (except one, Sonking, who had died) either pleaded guilty, or were convicted. Crimmins and two others appealed, but he alone has prosecuted the appeal to a conclusion. He was a lawyer practicing in Syracuse; his only contact with the rest was through one of them, Mahler, who lived in New York. (Another, Koch, did indeed swear that he had visited Crimmins, and Mahler swore that Sonking also had visited him; but for the purposes of this appeal these interviews may be disregarded.) Mahler went several times from New York to Syracuse, and offered stolen bonds to Crimmins, which Crimmins bought under circumstances which justified the jury in concluding, as they did, that he knew that they had been stolen. The record is, however, entirely bare of evidence that Crimmins knew the place of any of the thefts, and if it was necessary to prove that he knew that his confederates were fetching stolen bonds into the state, the prosecution failed to make out a case.
Ordinarily one is not guilty of a crime unless he is aware of the existence of all those facts which make his conduct criminal. That awareness is all that is meant by the mens rea, the "criminal intent", necessary to guilt, as distinct from the additional specific intent required in certain instances (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 167, 25 L.Ed. 244), and even this general intent is not always necessary. Sometimes, as for example in "felony murder", a man may be guilty who has no such awareness; the fact that one has engaged in a felony dispenses with the need of proving an intent to kill. Again, in "statutory rape" the accused need not know that the victim is below the age of consent; he takes his chances (Commonwealth v. Murphy, 165 Mass. 66, 42 N.E. 504, 30 L.R.A. 734, 52 Am.St.Rep. 496; People v. Marks, 146 App.Div. 11, 130 N. Y.S. 524); and in prosecutions for adultery he need not know that the other party is married — at least not unless he in good faith marries her, State v. Audette, 81 Vt. 400, 70 A. 833, 18 L.R.A.,N.S., 527, 130 Am.St.Rep. 1061, in such cases the accused's conduct is independently immoral or unlawful, and that casts upon him the risk that that element of the crime of which he is ignorant may in fact exist. In many venial offences also, such as breaches of municipal ordinances, one may be guilty who is ignorant of some of the operative facts. We need not decide whether a person who has any hand in moving about bonds which he knows to have been stolen, must also be shown to have known that they are moving across a state line, in order to be guilty under § 415 of Title 18. Conceivably his guilty knowledge of their acquisition may be enough; the Eighth Circuit has indeed held otherwise (Davidson v. United States, 61 F.2d 250) in the case of a statute closely akin; but, arguendo, we will assume the contrary. If so, a verdict of guilty on the substantive count could have stood, because a jury might have found that by making a market for the bonds, Crimmins furnished an inducement to Mahler and Mahler's confederates to bring stolen bonds into New York; i. e. that de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Wittig
...States v. Puckett, 692 F.2d 663, 669 (10th Cir. 1982). Further, though Judge Learned Hand thought otherwise, see United States v. Crimmins, 123 F.2d 271 (2d Cir.1941), the Supreme Court has explained that the government need not prove a higher degree of criminal intent respecting a jurisdic......
-
43 541 United States v. Feola 8212 1123
...were federal officers. The Court of Appeals approved the instructions on the substantive charges but, in reliance on United States v. Crimmins, 2 Cir., 123 F.2d 271, and its progeny, reversed the conspiracy convictions on the ground that the trial court had erred in not charging that knowle......
-
United States v. Dennis
...151 F.2d 810; United States v. Corrigan, 2 Cir., 168 F.2d 641, 645. 41 United States v. Peoni, 2 Cir., 100 F.2d 401; United States v. Crimmins, 2 Cir., 123 F.2d 271; United States v. Cohen, 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 82, 90, 42 United States v. Mitchell, 2 Cir., 137 F.2d 1006, 1010; Id., 2 Cir., 138 ......
-
United States v. Fernandez, 72-2088
...past such a light, for one cannot agree to run past a light unless one supposes that there is a light to run past, United States v. Crimmins, 123 F.2d 271, 273 (2d Cir. 1941), that Circuit held that scienter is required for proof of Not only do we have misgivings about substantive offenses ......
-
§ 29.05 CONSPIRACY: MENS REA
...220 (H.L.) (S sold space in a telephone and address directory to prostitutes).[95] . 420 U.S. 671 (1975).[96] . United States v. Crimmins, 123 F.2d 271, 273 (2d Cir. 1941).[97] . Feola, 420 U.S. at 689.[98] . American Law Institute, Comment to § 5.03, at 413.[99] . See § 12.03[D][2], supra.......
-
§ 29.05 Conspiracy: Mens Rea
...220 (H.L.) (S sold space in a telephone and address directory to prostitutes).[95] 420 U.S. 671 (1975). [96] United States v. Crimmins, 123 F.2d 271, 273 (2d Cir. 1941).[97] Feola, 420 U.S. at 689.[98] American Law Institute, Comment to § 5.03, at 413.[99] See § 12.03[D][2], supra. [100] At......
-
Mens rea and inchoate crimes.
...at 311 n.37 (1985); [Sections] 5.02 commentary at 371 n.23; [Sections] 5.03 commentary at 408-14. (37) 420 U.S. 671 (1975). (38) 123 F.2d 271 (2d Cir. (39) 112 F.2d 290 (2d Cir. 1940). (40) 63 N.Y. 88 (1875). (41) See Commonwealth v. Benesch, 194 N.E. 905 (Mass. 1905); Commonwealth v. Gorml......
-
TABLE OF CASES
..., 276 Cram, State v., 600 A.2d 733 (Vt. 1991), 274, 276 Crenshaw, State v., 659 P.2d 488 (Wash. 1983), 329 Crimmins, United States v., 123 F.2d 271 (2d Cir. 1941), 414 Cross, People v., 466 N.W.2d 368 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991), 385 Crow, Commonwealth v., 154 A. 283 (Pa. 1931), 529 Crump v. Stat......