United States v. Noveck, 169
| Citation | 46 S.Ct. 476,70 L.Ed. 904,271 U.S. 201 |
| Decision Date | 10 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 169,169 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. NOVECK |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Donovan, for the United States.
Mr. Ben A. Matthews, of New York City, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error was indicted November 5, 1923. The first count alleges the commission of perjury on March 13, 1920-more than three years before indictment. The District Court quashed that count on the ground that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations. The case is here under the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246 (Comp. St. § 1704).
The count charges 'the crime of perjury as defined by section 125 of the United States Criminal Code.' That section provides:
'Whoever, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, shall willfully and contrary to such oath state or subscribe any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury. * * *' 35 Stat. 1088, 1111 (Comp. St. § 10295).
The substance of the charge is that defendant in error on oath stated that the income tax due from S. Noveck & Co., Inc., for 1919, was $1,484.84 on an income of $16,251.66, whereas in fact the tax due was $45,664.91 on an income of $124,127.13. And it is alleged that the perjury was committed 'for the purpose of defrauding the United States.'
Section 1044 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the Act of November 17, 1921, c. 124, 42 Stat. 220 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1708), provides:
'No person shall be prosecuted, * * * for any offense, not capital, except as provided in section 1046, unless the indictment is found, * * * within three years next after such offense shall have been committed: Provided, however, that in offenses involving the defrauding or attempts to defraud the United States * * * the period of limitation shall be six years.'
The amendatory act added the proviso. Section 1046, Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 1710), declares that no person shall be prosecuted for any crime arising under the revenue laws unless the indictment is found within five years after the committing of such crime. Act July 5, 1884, c. 225, 23 Stat. 122, as amended by Revenue Act 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 315 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1711), fixes a three-year period of limitation for offenses arising under the internal revenue laws of the United States. Section 125 of the Criminal Code, under which the indictment was found, is not a part of and does not refer to the revenue laws. The limitations fixed in respect of offenses arising under those laws do not apply. See United States v. Hirsch, 100 U. S. 33, 25 L. Ed. 539; United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U. S. 78, 35 S. Ct. 682, 59 L. Ed. 1211.
Plaintiff in error contends that, as the perjury in this case is charged to have been committed in the making of an income tax return, and is specially alleged to have been committed for the purpose of defrauding the United States, the offense is brought within the proviso to section 1044, and that the six-year period of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bridges v. United States
... ... Scharton, 285 U.S. 518, 52 S.Ct. 416, 76 L.Ed. 917; United States v. McElvain, 272 U.S. 633, 47 S.Ct. 219, 71 L.Ed. 451; United States v. Noveck, 271 U.S. 201, 46 S.Ct. 476, 70 L.Ed. 904. See also, Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 54—55, 63 S.Ct. 99, 102, 87 L.Ed. 23, and United ... ...
-
United States v. Obermeier, 76
... ... That Act, so far as pertinent, is substantially the same as the Acts interpreted by the Supreme Court in United States v. Noveck, 271 U.S. 201, 46 S.Ct. 476, 70 L.Ed. 904, 61 United States v. McElvain, 272 U.S. 633, 47 S.Ct. 219, 71 L.Ed. 451, 62 and United States v ... ...
-
Bridges v. United States
... ... The Suspension Act does not apply in such circumstances if the decisions relative to the provisos considered in Noveck, McElvain and Scharton, hereinafter cited, are to rule. See our note 15a ... The Case Authorities ... United ... United States, 9 Cir., 88 F.2d 652, 664. Accord: Pasadena Research Laboratories v. United States, 9 Cir., 169 F.2d 375, 380. Tested by these rules, which this court has long followed, Craig v. United States, 9 Cir., 81 F.2d 816, 827, certiorari denied 298 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Prosperi, Criminal No. 06-10116-RGS.
... 573 F.Supp.2d 436 ... UNITED STATES of America ... Robert PROSPERI, Gregory Stevenson, Gerard McNally, ... Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 169, 68 S.Ct. 1429, 92 L.Ed. 1881 (1948). The reluctance to assay into ... 633, 47 S.Ct. 219, 71 L.Ed. 451 (1926) (same); United States v. Noveck, 271 U.S. 201, 46 S.Ct. 476, 70 L.Ed. 904 (1926) (same) ... 10. For ... ...