White v. United States
Citation | 67 F.2d 71 |
Decision Date | 12 September 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 832.,832. |
Parties | WHITE v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Frank Settle, of Tulsa, Okl. (Hulette F. Aby and William F. Tucker, both of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
Harry Seaton, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Tulsa, Okl. (John M. Goldesberry, U. S. Atty., of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.
Before PHILLIPS and McDERMOTT, Circuit Judges, and KENNEDY, District Judge.
The appellant, defendant in the court below, was convicted by the verdict of a jury upon an indictment charging him with concealing property of a bankrupt corporation of which he was president, known as Pig Skin Davis, Incorporated (11 USCA § 52), and from the judgment entered thereon he appeals.
There were three counts of the indictment all charging concealment of property belonging to the bankrupt. Before the trial a demurrer and motion to quash was interposed directed to the sufficiency of the indictment, which demurrer and motion were overruled and an exception reserved. The case proceeded to trial and upon its submission to the jury by the trial court the second count was dismissed. The jury returned a verdict of guilty upon the first count and not guilty upon the third count. Upon the first count resulting in conviction, the court interposed a sentence of 18 months in the penitentiary. This appeal brings before the court only the record as it applies to count one of the indictment, upon which the attack is here made. An analysis of this count discloses that, after alleging the bankruptcy of the corporation, the jurisdiction of the court, and the appointment of the receiver, it charges that from the 1st day of July, 1930, to the 10th day of February, 1932, defendant was the qualified and acting president of the bankrupt corporation, and "that the said defendant, as such president, officer and agent of said Pig Skin Davis, Incorporated, a corporation, on or about the 28th day of January, A. D. 1932, down to and including the date of the returning of this indictment, to wit, June 14, 1932, in Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and within the the jurisdiction of this court, with the intent on the part of him the said defendant, Ernest H. White, to defeat the operation of said Acts of Congress relating to bankruptcy, and Title 11 of the United States Codes Annotated, and in contemplation of bankruptcy, did knowingly, fraudulently and feloniously conceal personal property of said Pig Skin Davis, Incorporated, a corporation, of the total value of Seventeen Thousand Dollars ($17,000), a more particular description thereof being to the Grand Jurors unknown, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the United States of America."
It may be noticed in passing that while the first count alleges the appointment and qualification of a receiver it does not specifically allege that the property was concealed from such receiver, certainly a deficiency in itself fatal. This situation does not apply to counts two and three. However, this is not the basis of the attack upon the indictment on behalf of the appellant. We observe also that in count three, where there was a specific description of the property alleged to have been concealed, there was a verdict of acquittal.
The contention of the appellant is that the first count of the indictment upon which the appellant was convicted is so indefinite that it is insufficient in law and void, in that it does not apprise the defendant of the nature of the charge against him in failing to state what particular personal property of the bankrupt the defendant is charged with having concealed. Reverting again to the language of said first count, it is charged that the appellant "did knowingly, fraudulently and feloniously conceal personal property of the said Pig Skin Davis, incorporated, a corporation, of the total value of Seventeen Thousand Dollars ($17,000), a more particular description thereof being to the Grand Jurors unknown."
The point definitely presented is, as to whether or not the trial court erred in overruling the demurrer to the first count of the indictment. Inasmuch as the subject of definiteness of criminal pleadings is more or less of a controversial one, it may be helpful to examine and quote from a number of selected authorities touching the general rule and also relating to charges under the specific statute upon which the conviction was had in the case at bar.
In 31 C. J. at page 650, the following rule is laid down:
Further, at page 663, the text reads: "A person indicted for a serious offense is presumably innocent, and the sufficiency of an indictment must be tested upon the presumption that he is innocent and has no knowledge of the facts charged against him."
In the much-quoted case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, at page 557, 23 L. Ed. 588, Mr. Chief Justice Waite used the following language: .
In United States v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483, at page 486, 8 S. Ct. 571, 573, 31 L. Ed. 516, we find the following:
In Evans v. United States, 153 U. S. 584, at page 587, 14 S. Ct. 934, 936, 38 L. Ed. 830, we read:
The same general rule is reiterated in Bartell v. United States, 227 U. S. 427, at page 431, 33 S. Ct. 383, 384, 57 L. Ed. 583: "It is elementary that an indictment, in order to be good under the Federal Constitution and laws, shall advise the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, in order that he may meet the accusation and prepare for his trial, and that, after judgment, he may be able to plead the record and judgment in bar of further prosecution for the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frankfort Distilleries v. United States
...general charge therein contained the particular offense of which appellant was accused and was to be put on trial." In White v. United States, 10 Cir., 67 F. 2d 71, 79, the court followed the reasoning in the Skelley case, supra, and after a careful analysis of the leading federal cases dea......
-
State v. Truby
... ... is a crime which is not made so by statute. The Criminal Code ... itself states this rule in Article 7, as follows: ... 'A Crime ... is that conduct which is defined as ... 'unlawful' means 'not authorized by law.' ... [29 So.2d 762] ... McDaniel v. United States, [4 Cir.,] 87 F. 324, 30 C.C.A ... 670. Again, in the phrase descriptive of the purpose of ... indictment charging violation of the so-called ... 'White-Slave Traffic Act, 18 U.S.C.A. � 397 et seq. An ... offender under one of the provisions of ... ...
-
United States v. Mix, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 12-171
...the elements of the offense sought to be charged, or else a conviction based thereon cannot stand. Id. at 26 citing White v. United States, 67 F.2d 71 (10th Cir. 1933). The Walker trial judge charged the jury by reviewing each and every count at issue in the indictment and then read to the ......
-
Marteney v. United States
...F.2d 684, certiorari denied 337 U.S. 946, 69 S.Ct. 1503, 93 L.Ed. 1749; Lowenburg v. United States, 10 Cir., 156 F.2d 22; White v. United States, 10 Cir., 67 F.2d 71. We shall not, however, labor the point as it is conceded that count twenty-nine is sufficient and that the sentence imposed ......