United States v. Fotto
| Decision Date | 20 March 1952 |
| Citation | 103 F. Supp. 430 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. FOTTO et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Myles J. Lane, U. S. Atty., New York City, by David S. Carton, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, for plaintiff.
Mordecai M. Merker, New York City, for defendant LoCascio.
These are two motions by the defendant, Frank LoCascio. One—to dismiss an indictment as to him on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction to try him on the indictment; Two—in the event the first motion is denied, for a severance and separate trial. The indictment contains "Six" Counts charging five of the defendants with violation of Title 18 U.S. C.A. §§ 371, 472 and 473. The only count charged against LoCascio is the "Fifth" Count, which charges him with the possession of $100 in counterfeit Federal Reserve Bank notes.
LoCascio's ground for dismissal is that he should be treated as a juvenile delinquent under Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 5032 as he is charged with having possession of the notes on August 8, 1950, when he was only seventeen years of age. He was born on September 24, 1932, and would not be eighteen until September 24, 1950. He was indicted in October, 1950, after reaching eighteen. He has pleaded not guilty and has consented to be treated as a juvenile. The Attorney General has not expressly directed otherwise.
The question is whether the defendant under eighteen when the offense was committed, but over eighteen when indicted, is entitled to be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Delinquency Act. The pertinent parts of the Act are as follows:
Section 5031. Definitions "For the purposes of this chapter a `juvenile' is a person who has not attained his eighteenth birthday, and `juvenile delinquency' is the violation of a law of the United States committed by a juvenile and not punishable by death or life imprisonment."
Counsel have not cited and I have not found any decision in which this feature of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act has been passed upon.
There are a number of decisions in the state courts. Some hold that the age at the time the offense is committed is the determinative age; but the majority of the state courts hold that it is the age at the time of the indictment or of the trial. Most of the opinions are found in 123 A. L.R. 446. I shall not lengthen this memorandum by quoting them here. But state court decisions do not afford much light on the problem as the wording of the various state statutes differs from each other and from the Federal Act.
Moreover, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Benoit
...conduct resulting from immature judgment." State v. Lemelin, 101 N.H. 404, 406, 144 A.2d 916, 918 (1958) (quoting United States v. Fotto, 103 F.Supp. 430, 431 (S.D.N.Y.1952)) (emphasis The legislature has provided various procedures to effectuate the purposes and objectives of RSA chapter 1......
-
Harrison v. United States
...though that statute, unlike ours, does not expressly establish juvenile delinquency jurisdiction in such cases. United States v. Fotto, 103 F.Supp. 430, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 1952); United States v. Webb, 112 F. Supp. 950, 951 (W.D.Okl.1953); United States v. Jones, 141 F.Supp. 641, 643 14 The foll......
-
State v. Fountaine
...States v. Flowers, D.C.W.D.Tenn.1963, 227 F.Supp. 1014; United States v. Morales, D.C.D.Mont.1964, 233 F.Supp. 160; United States v. Fotto, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1952, 103 F.Supp. 430.) In Fagerstrom v. United States, 8 Cir. (1963), 311 F.2d 717, the court said: 'To be adjudged a juvenile delinquent ......
-
Mannon v. State, 16417
...the proposition that the penalty for an offense is that provided by statute at the time the offense was committed. United States v. Fotto, 103 F.Supp. 430, 431 (S.D.N.Y.1952); State v. Lopez, 107 Ariz. 90, 482 P.2d 457, 458 (banc 1971); Kelsey v. State, 194 Kan. 668, 400 P.2d 736, 738 (1965......