Source: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-tripp-2
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:03:06
Document Index: 247347255

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1961', '§ 2915', '§ 750', '§ 891', '§ 1951', '§ 1952', '§ 1961', '§ 2421', '§ 1961', '§ 750', '§ 1951', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 750', '§ 2915']

United States v. Tripp, 782 F.2d 38 | Casetext
782 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1986)
United Statesv.Tripp
Argued October 3, 1985.
Thomas Tripp appeals from his convictions for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d). For the reasons that follow, Tripp's convictions are affirmed.
On March 21, 1984, defendant Thomas Tripp was indicted on three counts of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d), and 1951. Count I alleged that Tripp together with Robert J. Doniere, Frank Joseph, Dean E. Knopp, Samuel Giordano, Anthony Palazzolo, Donald Jr. Christy and David G. Dewood, Jr. was engaged in an "enterprise" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) for the purpose of engaging in violations of Ohio Rev. Code § 2915.02, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 750.157b, .301, .314, 18 U.S.C. § 891-894, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(6), and 18 U.S.C. § 2421. As part of this "enterprise," the indictment listed twenty "unlawful debts," 18 U.S.C. § 1961(6), which the defendants had collected. Tripp was implicated in collections from Paul Stark, Albert Bifano, Robert Kohler, Albert Perras, Anthony Falzone, Robert Miller, and John Pantanella. As part of the pattern of racketeering which Tripp was alleged to have engaged in, the indictment alleged conspiracy to violate Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.157a(b), .301, .314, and conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Count II alleged that defendants conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by conspiring to collect unlawful debts, debts incurred in gambling schemes which violated Ohio and Michigan gambling laws. This conspiracy was allegedly effected through high stakes card games using a rigged deck.
On September 24, 1984, Tripp was convicted by the jury of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d).
While we agree with the government that the additional card games testified to by Doniere did not constitute "other acts" subject to the requirements of Rule 404(b) and that such evidence was admissible as evidence of the conspiracy, United States v. Zielie, 734 F.2d 1447, 1456 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 957, 83 L.Ed.2d 964 (1985); United States v. Gigante, 729 F.2d 78, 84 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1206, 104 S.Ct. 2390, 81 L.Ed.2d 348 (1984); United States v. Abadi, 706 F.2d 178, 181 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 821, 104 S.Ct. 86, 78 L.Ed.2d 95 (1983); United States v. Meyers, 646 F.2d 1142, 1146 (6th Cir. 1981); United States v. Aleman, 592 F.2d 881, 885 (5th Cir. 1979), the balancing of potential prejudice and probative value required by Rule 403 is still applicable. Since the card games which took place during the conspiracy are plainly relevant to the issue of conspiracy, any prejudice which Tripp might incur due to the introduction of the evidence is outweighed by the probative value of such evidence. We perceive no abuse of discretion by the district court in this regard. United States v. Vincent, 681 F.2d 462, 465 (6th Cir. 1982).
Tripp contends that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the government must prove two overt acts in order to support a conspiracy conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
We find this argument plainly without merit. Case law holds clearly that an agreement to commit a substantive RICO violation is sufficient to sustain a conspiracy conviction, United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099, 1116 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 336, 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985); United States v. Tillett, 763 F.2d 628, 632 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Weinstein, 76 F.2d 1522, 1536 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Tille, 729 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 156, 83 L.Ed.2d 93 (1984); United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1208, 1220 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1206, 103 S.Ct. 1194, 75 L.Ed.2d 439 (1983); United States v. Winter, 663 F.2d 1120, 1136 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1011, 103 S.Ct. 1250, 75 L.Ed.2d 479 (1983), and that 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) does not require proof of an overt act, United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 645 n. 8 (11th Cir. 1984); United States v. Carter, 721 F.2d 1514, 1528 n. 20 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 89, 83 L.Ed.2d 36 (1984); United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120, 1123-24 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 973, 104 S.Ct. 2349, 80 L.Ed.2d 822 (1984); United States v. Barton, 647 F.2d 224, 237 (2d Cir. 1981). But see United States v. Boldin, 772 F.2d 719, 727 (11th Cir. 1985). In light of this case law and the absence in the statute of any support for requiring two overt acts, we find no error in the district court's instructions.
Tripp asserts that the RICO statute, by adopting the laws of the states in defining "racketeering activity," 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause by creating a lack of national uniformity and by not properly notifying a person that his conduct is illegal. Accordingly, Tripp argues, the statute is void for vagueness.
This court and others have squarely rejected the argument that the federal racketeering statute is unconstitutionally vague. See United States v. Morelli, 643 F.2d 402, 412 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 3143, 69 L.Ed.2d 994 (1981); United States v. Aleman, 609 F.2d 298, 305 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 1345, 63 L.Ed.2d 780 (1980); United States v. Huber, 603 F.2d 387, 393 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 927, 100 S.Ct. 1312, 63 L.Ed.2d 759 (1980); United States v. Swiderski, 593 F.2d 1246, 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 933, 99 S.Ct. 2056, 60 L.Ed.2d 662 (1979); United States v. Hawes, 529 F.2d 472, 478-79 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Campanale, 518 F.2d 352, 364 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1050, 96 S.Ct. 777, 46 L.Ed.2d 638 (1976); United States v. Cappetto, 502 F.2d 1351, 1357-58 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 925, 95 S.Ct. 1121, 43 L.Ed.2d 395 (1975). Nor is there any constitutional objection to a criminal statute that incorporates state law for purposes of defining illegal conduct. United States v. Morrison, 531 F.2d 1089, 1093 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 837, 97 S.Ct. 104, 50 L.Ed.2d 103 (1976); United States v. Sacco, 491 F.2d 995, 1003 (9th Cir. 1974) ( en banc); United States v. Smaldone, 485 F.2d 1333, 1342-43 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936, 94 S.Ct. 1934, 40 L.Ed.2d 286 (1974); Marshall v. United States, 355 F.2d 999, 1003-04 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 815, 87 S.Ct. 34, 17 L.Ed.2d 54 (1966). That is true even if the result is that conduct that is lawful under the federal statute in one state is unlawful in another. See United States v. Abramson, 553 F.2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 911, 97 S.Ct. 2979, 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); United States v. Villano, 529 F.2d 1046, 1056 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 953, 96 S.Ct. 3180, 49 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1976); Hawes, 529 F.2d at 477; United States v. Wolk, 466 F.2d 1143, 1146 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1972); Schneider v. United States, 459 F.2d 540, 542-43 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 877, 93 S.Ct. 129, 34 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972).
Tripp's precise objections are difficult to discern from his brief. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A) provides:
Tripp does not allege that the state offenses involved herein themselves are "void-for-vagueness." In the absence of elucidation regarding the specific infirmities in the statute, we find no cause to depart from precedent, and find that the statute, in light of the underlying state offenses, gives sufficient notice of the conduct proscribed.
Nemetz v. INS, 647 F.2d 432 (4th Cir. 1981), cited by Tripp is so plainly distinguishable, that it merits no discussion.
Tripp argues that the activities in which he engaged did not constitute "gambling" under either Ohio or Michigan law, but rather constituted larceny by trick, since the poker games were shown to be fixed. Therefore, Tripp contends, under such facts, these "rigged" poker games were not predicate acts illegal under state law as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).
The district court rejected this argument ruling that the poker games violated the Ohio and Michigan gambling statutes even if the games were rigged. The court pointed out that under the government's theory of the case, each of the poker games began with "honest" gambling, and it was only after the game had proceeded for some period of time that the dealer would insert a rigged deck and cheat the "mark" out of a large sum of money. Therefore, the court concluded, traditional gambling was apparently involved in every game referred to in the indictment. But even assuming that the card games were rigged from the start, the court held, the elimination of the element of chance would not affect the analysis, since the card games still clearly "involved" gambling, within the meaning of the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A). "To find that `honest' gambling states a RICO violation and `dishonest' gambling does not would be an absurd result, particularly here where the indictment alleged illegal activities of a large-scale organized nature, which was the target of RICO," the court held.
The pertinent Michigan gambling statute, Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.314, makes it unlawful for any person "by playing at cards . . . or by betting or putting up money on cards . . . [to] win or obtain any sum of money or any goods." By its terms, that statute covers both "honest" gambling and "dishonest" gambling, inasmuch as both honest and dishonest gamblers "put up money on cards" to "obtain . . . money" as a result. Thus, even if Tripp's games were rigged from the start, they still ran afoul of the Michigan statute, since Tripp was indisputably engaged in "putting up money on cards" in order to "win or obtain any sum of money or goods."
The pertinent Ohio statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2915.02(A)(2) makes it unlawful for anyone to "promote, or operate, or knowingly engage in conduct that facilitates any scheme or game of chance conducted for profit." The same statute also makes it unlawful for anyone to "engage in betting . . . as a substantial source of income or livelihood." Section 2915.02(A)(4). The term "game of chance" is defined to include poker, and the term "bet" is defined to mean "the hazarding of anything of value upon the result of an event, undertaking or contingency." Section 2915.01(B), (D).
Both clauses of the Ohio statute would reach the conduct at issue in this case. The statute declares poker to be a "game of chance" by definition. Thus, operating a poker game for profit is a violation of the statute without regard to the degree of chance involved in the particular poker game at issue. See Mills-Jennings of Ohio, Inc. v. Department of Liquor Control, 70 Ohio St.2d 95, 435 N.E.2d 407 (1982). Because Tripp promoted, operated, and engaged in games of poker for profit, he fell within the first clause of the Ohio statute. Further, Tripp was engaged in "betting" as a substantial source of income, since he hazarded large sums of money upon the result of an event or undertaking. Therefore, even though Tripp's money may not have been substantially at risk during the fixed poker games, he was still engaged in "gambling" within the meaning of both Michigan and Ohio law. Accordingly, the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that "rigged" poker games could constitute an "act . . . involving . . . gambling . . . which is chargeable under State law."
While such an instruction is generally appropriate, United States v. Jackson, 425 F.2d 574, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1970), failure to include such an instruction is not reversible error if the "charge, considered as a whole, includes the principle of the tendered instruction." United States v. McCarty, 440 F.2d 681, 682 (6th Cir. 1971). See also United States v. Stull, 521 F.2d 687, 691 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1059, 96 S.Ct. 794, 46 L.Ed.2d 649 (1976). The district court instructed the jury that they were the "sole judges of the credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony." A similar instruction was deemed sufficient in Stull, where the expert's testimony comprised only one page of transcript and provided only background information and did not directly implicate the defendants.
Accordingly, we find no error in the court's failure to deliver the tendered instruction.
Any error in this regard, would, of course, be plainly harmless. United States v. Smith, 736 F.2d 1103, 1107 (6th Cir.) cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 213, 83 L.Ed.2d 143 (1984).