United States v. Logsdon, Cr. No. 5372.
| Decision Date | 22 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | Cr. No. 5372. |
| Citation | 132 F. Supp. 3 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Regina LOGSDON, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
J. Leonard Walker, U. S. Dist. Atty., Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff.
Rodes K. Myers and George B. Boston, Bowling Green, Ky., for defendant.
The defendant, Regina Logsdon, is charged in eighteen counts of an indictment with violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 656. The language used in each count is the same with the exception of the dates, the amount and payees of the checks and as far as is pertinent here is as follows:
"On or about * * * the defendant, Bernard Ware Barrett, acting as Cashier of the insured bank, aided, abetted, counseled and induced by defendants, * * * Regina Logsdon, did wilfully misapply moneys, funds and credits of the insured bank, to-wit, * * * in that defendants * * * Regina Logsdon issued a check drawn on the account of Alabama-Kentucky Building Supply Company, Inc., in and with the insured bank in the sum aforesaid, payable to * * *; defendant Bernard Ware Barrett honored and paid this check from moneys, funds and credits of the insured bank, when in truth and in fact the defendants well knew there were insufficient funds in the account of Alabama-Kentucky Building Supply Company with which to pay this check."
It is the contention of the defendant that the wording of 18 U.S.C.A. § 656 does not contain the essential elements of the criminal offense intended to be charged and that therefore the indictment which admittedly follows the wording of the statute fails to define a crime and must be dismissed. Her argument is based on the fact that the present revised statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 656, has dropped the language contained in the old section 12 U.S.C.A. § 592, 1940 Ed., providing that the willful misapplication of moneys be made "with intent in any case to injure or defraud such * * * bank * * *."
Whether or not the "intent * * to injure or defraud" is an essential element of a statutory crime when the terms of the statute omit it is a question of legislative intent to be determined by the Court. United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 42 S.Ct. 301, 66 L.Ed. 604; Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288. Also see Judge McAllister's dissenting opinion in Morissette v. United States, 6 Cir., 187 F.2d 427.
The Revisor's notes under 18 U.S.C.A. § 656 state that the purpose of revision was to clarify the verbose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williamson v. United States
...statute. Golden v. United States, 1 Cir., 1963, 318 F.2d 357; Seals v. United States, 8 Cir., 1955, 221 F.2d 243. Cf. United States v. Logsdon, D.Ky., 1955, 132 F.Supp. 3, aff'd, 6 Cir., 253 F.2d As in most cases, criminal intent must be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case......
-
United States v. Docherty
...the offense. E. g., Seals v. United States, 221 F.2d 243 (8 Cir. 1955); Logsdon v. United States, 253 F.2d 12 (6 Cir. 1958), aff'g 132 F.Supp. 3 (W.D.Ky.1955); Ramirez v. United States, 318 F.2d 155 (9 Cir. 1963). Others, including our own, while not discussing the omission of the intent la......
-
Logsdon v. United States
...in that the words "did wilfully misapply" constituted a sufficient charge of a criminal intent to defraud. United States v. Logsdon, D.C.W.D.Ky., 132 F.Supp. 3, 4. We concur in the ruling for the reasons stated in the opinion. See also: United States v. Ruse, D.C. W.D.Pa., 112 F.Supp. 667. ......
-
Ramirez v. United States, 18256.
...297 F.2d 330 (9th Cir., 1961). 11 Hagner v. United States, supra, note 9. 12 253 F.2d 12, 14 (6th Cir. 1958). 13 United States v. Logsdon, 132 F.Supp. 3, 4 (D.C.Ken.1955). See also United States v. Matot, 146 F.2d 197, 198 (2nd Cir., 1944) in which Judge Learned Hand in obiter dicta stated ......