Voves v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 March 1918 |
| Docket Number | 2536. |
| Parties | VOVES v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Arthur T. Holmes, of La Crosse, Wis., for plaintiff in error.
Arthur C. Wolfe, of La Crosse, Wis., for the United States.
Before BAKER, ALSCHULER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Voves was convicted of selling liquor to an Indian in violation of section 2139, R.S.U.S. (29 Stat. 506). This offense is malum prohibitum; a criminal or wicked intent is not an element and as the statute does not contain the word 'knowingly,' or other of like import, the seller's belief that the purchaser was not an Indian is immaterial. That the seller voluntarily made the sale is sufficient. Feeley v. United States, 236 F. 906, 150 C.C.A. 165.
In the present case there was testimony which the jury might have accepted as establishing the following facts: Voves had not been selling or giving liquor to Indians; the government agents had no reason to suspect that he had been or would Mexican railroad laborers had recently moved into the neighborhood; the Indian in question looked like a Mexican he was a government decoy; he wore a black suit, white soft shirt, and black slouch hat; he came in and asked for liquor; Voves believed he was a Mexican; shortly he was followed by two white men, government detectives; as Voves was about to pass liquor to the decoy, one detective said to the other within the hearing of Voves, 'I didn't know Indians were allowed to get whisky here;' whereupon Voves turned to them and said, 'Why that man is a Mexican,' and none of the three said a word in denial; they stood by while Voves made the sale on which the indictment was predicated. By exceptions to the charge the question is presented: Is the general rule, which is stated in the opening paragraph, of universal application?
Grant that the government may use a decoy to discover evidence of a committed crime of whatever nature; that, where one has the intent to commit a malum in se, or the willingness to do a malum prohibitum, a decoy may accompany the wrongdoer and even participate in the offense; that a liquor seller is guilty, despite his honest and reasonable belief respecting the age or race of the purchaser; and even that he must take his chance that a purchaser, who is not a government decoy may willfully deceive him by camouflage-- still the question remains: May the government maintain an indictment against a person for doing a malum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorrells v. United States
...law, made a sale to an Indian disguised so as to mislead the accused as to his identity. U. S. v. Healy (D. C.) 202 F. 349; Voves v. U. S. (C. C. A. 7th) 249 F. 191. In such case the accused lacked the intent to violate the law, and was placed in the position of violating it by the trick of......
-
Sorrells v. United States
...to an Indian who was disguised so as to mislead the accused as to his identity. United States v. Healy (D.C.) 202 F. 349; Voves v. United States (C.C.A.) 249 F. 191. In the second class are found cases such as those of larceny or rape where want of consent is an element of the crime. Regina......
-
O'BRIEN v. United States
...essential elements of an estoppel must exist before the government is denied a judgment because of such conduct. In the case of Voves v. U. S., 249 F. 191, 192, Judge Baker, speaking for this court, "Grant that the government may use a decoy to discover evidence of a committed crime of what......
-
Sherman v. United States.
...167 Ind. 602, 78 N.E. 845, 119 Am.St.Rep. 524. 5George v. United States, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 197, 125 F.2d 559. 6In Voves v. United States, 7 Cir., 249 F. 191, 192, a case in which intent was not an element of the offense, the court said: ‘In a civil transaction between citizens such conduct as......