United States v. Meeker, Cr. No. 2800.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | Cr. No. 2800. |
| Citation | 110 F. Supp. 743 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MEEKER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
Lynn W. Kirkland, Asst. U. S. Atty., Anchorage, Alaska, for plaintiff.
Herman H. Ross, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendant.
The defendant was convicted, upon a trial by the Court, of violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 912, providing that:
"Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned".
The motion to vacate the judgment and enter a judgment of acquittal is based on the ground that no intent to defraud was alleged or proved.
The information charges that the defendant falsely personated a deputy U. S. marshal and in such character demanded and obtained $46. Upon the trial it was proved that a car driven by one Longrie collided with the defendant's car, whereupon the defendant exhibited a card issued by the state of Arizona identifying him as a special or honorary deputy sheriff and declared that he was a deputy U. S. marshal. Upon examining Longrie's license the defendant said that it was invalid, that Longrie was at fault for the collision and demanded that he accompany him to a garage, authorize and pay for the repair of his car. Longrie was apparently convinced that he was at fault and paid the garage bill.
The defendant argues that since Longrie merely did what he would have had to do in any event, he was not defrauded. But both Longrie and his wife testified that they would not have paid the repair bill except for the personation but would have called on the insurer of their car to pay for the damages. Since Longrie was thereby induced to do something which he would not have done, the case falls within the doctrine of United States v. Lepowitch, 318 U.S. 702, 63 S.Ct. 914, 87 L.Ed. 1091, decided before the words "with intent to defraud" were omitted in the revision of the statute in 1948. It would appear, therefore, that if it was unnecessary to show that what was done or given had any value to the doer or giver when the statute expressly required an intent to defraud, a fortiori is it unnecessary now.
But the defendant argues that even though the words "with intent to defraud" were omitted, the statute as revised must still be construed as requiring an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Rosser
...280 F.Supp. 425, 426--427 n.4 (1968); United States v. Carr, N.D.Cal., 194 F.Supp. 144, 145 n.1 (1961); United States v. Meeker, 110 F.Supp. 743, 744, 14 Alaska 249 (1953).11 See, e.g., S.Rep. No. 1620, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1948) ('The original intent of Congress is preserved.').12 See,......
-
United States v. Fierson, 17294.
...v. Harth, 280 F.Supp. 425 (W.D.Okla.1968) with United States v. Guthrie, 387 F.2d 569 (4th Cir. 1967) and United States v. Meeker, 110 F.Supp. 743, 14 Alaska 249 (D.Alas.1953). Since the kind of intent required to commit the offense charged in Count I of the indictment is not an issue befor......
-
U.S. v. Rose
...280 F.Supp. 425, 426 n. 4 (W.D.Okl.1968); United States v. Carr, 194 F.Supp. 144, 145 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1961); United States v. Meeker, 110 F.Supp. 743, 14 Alaska 249 (D.Alaska 1953). The requirement that there be an 'intent to defraud' was dropped in the 1948 revision of the Criminal Code. The......
-
United States v. Carr, Crim. No. 12978.
...and which charges that defendant "fraudulently" obtained the money, is actually surplusage (Title 18 U.S.C. § 912: See: United States v. Meeker, D.C., 110 F. Supp. 743; and United States v. Lepowitch, 318 U.S. 702, 63 S.Ct. 914, 87 L. Ed. 1091). As such it is harmless and not only may, but ......