United States v. Tandaric

• Decision Date: 04 March 1946
• Docket Number: No. 8817.,8817.
• Citation: 152 F.2d 3
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. TANDARIC.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

152 F.2d 3 (1945)

UNITED STATES v. TANDARIC.

No. 8817.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

November 17, 1945.

Rehearing Denied December 7, 1945.

Writ of Certiorari Denied March 4, 1946.

Max R. Naiman and David J. Bentall, both of Chicago, Ill. (Harold J. Finder, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant.

Alexander M. Campbell, U. S. Atty., of Fort Wayne, Ind., James E. Keating, Asst. U. S. Atty., of South Bend, Ind., and Theron Lamar Caudle, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before EVANS, SPARKS, and KERNER, Circuit Judges.

Writ of Certiorari Denied March 4, 1946. See 66 S.Ct. 703.

KERNER, Circuit Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment rendered on a verdict of guilty upon an indictment charging that on February 2, 1942, defendant, being an alien, did "unlawfully, wilfully, knowingly and feloniously, falsely represent himself to Bendix Home Appliance Corporation, South Bend, Indiana, and to the officials of the Bendix Home Appliance Corporation" to be a citizen of the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 746(a) (18), which makes it a felony for any alien "knowingly to falsely represent himself to be a citizen of the United States without having been naturalized or admitted to citizenship, or without otherwise being a citizen of the United States."

The errors assigned are (1) that the statute is unconstitutional; (2) that there was no evidence of the corpus delicti; and (3) the court admitted improper evidence.

Defendant argues that the statute is unconstitutional because it is in contravention of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution in that it was not enacted under any powers granted to Congress, and that it abridges freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment.

We think this contention lacks merit and need not be discussed except to say that in the case of Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 289, 24 S.Ct. 719, 722, 48 L.Ed. 979, there too it was contended that the Act there under consideration was unconstitutional because no power "is delegated by the Constitution to the general government over alien friends with reference to their admission into the United States or otherwise, * * *," and that it abridged the freedom of speech. It is true that was a deportation case and the statute did not provide punishment for its infraction, but the court held, as is so clearly expressed in the case of United States v. Frederick, D.C., 50 F.Supp. 769, 772, "that Congress may exclude aliens from the United States, prescribe the conditions under which they may enter, provide for their supervision, regulate their conduct, and fix their rights while here."

Defendant also insists that the challenged provision of the statute is repugnant to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The argument is that its language is too vague and uncertain to inform aliens what conduct on their part will constitute a criminal offense; that the broad language of the statute subjects an alien to fine and imprisonment for making a false statement, regardless of the occasion, purpose, or of the person to whom it is made; and he cites cases where legislative enactments have been wanting in certainty.

True, the terms of a penal statute must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it as to what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties, and a statute which forbids the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law. But this is not such a statute. Men of common intelligence will have little difficulty in determining what is prohibited by it.

In the case of United States v. Achtner, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 49, 51, it was claimed that the statute was unconstitutional. The court, after relating the history and purpose of the statute, held it was constitutional and said: "Under this statute no limitation was placed upon the circumstances under which and the persons to whom the false representation was made, as long as it was for a `fraudulent purpose.'" We approve the conclusion and the reasoning of the court. See also United States v. Frederick, supra, affirmed 5 Cir., 146 F.2d 488, certiorari denied, 324 U.S. 861, 65 S.Ct. 866.

Defendant claims that there is no evidence that he falsely represented himself to be a citizen of the United States. We think there was.

Upon oral argument it was admitted that defendant was not a citizen of the United States and the evidence is clearly to that effect. The evidence shows that defendant was born in Yugoslavia and that neither he nor his father was ever naturalized. Defendant went by the name of Bob Rebic and two of Bendix' employees identified him as the person who made the representation presently to be noted. Chapman, formerly general manager of Bendix, testified that he conferred with defendant in the preparation of exhibit 2 (factory...