Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/412/452/290961/
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 15:45:15
Document Index: 670500015

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 331', '§ 331', '§ 331', '§ 32', '§ 331', '§ 331', '§ 331', '§ 331']

United States of America, Appellee, v. Robert Karl Funk, Jr., Appellant, 412 F.2d 452 (8th Cir. 1969) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eighth Circuit › 1969 › United States of America, Appellee, v. Robert Karl Funk, Jr., Appellant
United States of America, Appellee, v. Robert Karl Funk, Jr., Appellant, 412 F.2d 452 (8th Cir. 1969)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 412 F.2d 452 (8th Cir. 1969) June 19, 1969
Defendant appeals a conviction in two counts of the unlawful sale and delivery of LSD in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 331(q) (2) and the unlawful possession of LSD in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 331(q) (3). Upon appeal it is claimed (1) that there was no proof to show that the LSD in question was connected with int erstate commerce and that federal statutory regulation of int rastate drug traffic is unconstitutional; (2) that the trial court erred in ruling on a Fifth Amendment waiver issue and (3) that the information and conviction are void because (a) the defendant was denied a preliminary hearing and (b) the defendant was denied prosecution by indictment by reason of Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(a). We affirm.
Defendant concedes that this court has approved the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C. § 331 et seq. in its regulation of both int rastate and int erstate drug traffic. White v. United States, 399 F.2d 813 (8 Cir. 1968); Whalen v. United States, 398 F.2d 286 (8 Cir. 1968). These recent decisions continue to reflect the view of this court; further discussion is unnecessary.
Defendant complains of the trial court questioning a defense witness relative to certain of the witness' rights under the Fifth Amendment. Defendant's counsel wanted to ask a defense witness whether the defendant was present at the time and place of the sale of the LSD. The court ruled over defense objection that if the witness answered this and related questions, he would waive his rights to the protection of the Fifth Amendment as to other questions which might in fact incriminate the witness. See Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 71 S. Ct. 438, 95 L. Ed. 344 (1951). Upon defense counsel's request the court, however, allowed him to ask further without reference to the transaction itself, (1) whether the witness was in the upstairs part of the building, in the kitchen part of which the transaction was supposed to have taken place, on the evening in question and (2) if so, whether he saw the defendant there during the evening. The witness said he was there but that at no time did he see the defendant. Thereafter the court again cautioned the witness as to his rights and as to the rule of waiver. The prosecutor then asked the witness certain questions about his presence at the time and place of the sale. The court repeatedly warned the witness "that if he is going to put himself in the house and start identifying the people at the transaction, that he will have to tell the whole story." The witness, nevertheless, answered the prosecutor's questions and identified the people present. The witness testified that the defendant was not in the house that night. The court thereupon asked the witness, over defense objection, to answer who sold the LSD. The witness ultimately responded: "I don't know." Defense counsel's argument is that the court erred in requiring the witness to answer who sold the LSD since it was not relevant to the other questions asked.
The government urges that the defendant lacks standing to challenge the court's ruling. See Bouschor v. United States, 316 F.2d 451 (8 Cir. 1963). However, notwithstanding the defendant's doubtful standing the claim of prejudice to this defendant borders upon the frivolous. The jury was informed by the witness that the defendant was not seen by the witness at the time of the sale or even in the same house.
The basic answer to defendant's contention is that the rules do not provide for a preliminary hearing once an information or indictment has been issued. This same challenge has been made in other misdemeanor cases upon both collateral and direct attack and denied. United States v. Pickard, 207 F.2d 472, 475 (9 Cir. 1953); United States v. Grady, 185 F.2d 273, 275 (7 Cir. 1950); Rivera v. Government of Virgin Islands, 375 F.2d 988 (3 Cir. 1967); Roddy v. United States, 296 F.2d 9 (10 Cir. 1961). See also United States v. Achen, 267 F. 595 (E.D.N.Y. 1920). No constitutional requirement is suggested. Cf. Crump v. Anderson, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 173, 352 F.2d 649 (1965).
The information under Rule 7(a) is used to inform the accused of the nature of the misdemeanor charged. It may now be filed without leave of court, and if properly drawn is deemed sufficient to cause a defendant to stand trial in the district court. No intervening finding of probable cause is required. Once issued it legally supersedes the proceedings before the Commissioner. As Mr. Justice Black reasoned in Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363, 76 S. Ct. 406, 100 L. Ed. 397 (1956):
Defendant concedes that after an indictment has been made that the complaint is superseded as a formal charge and a preliminary hearing is not necessary. Sciortino v. Zampano, 385 F.2d 132 (2 Cir. 1967); Vincent v. United States, 337 F.2d 891, 896 (8 Cir. 1964); Crump v. Anderson, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 173, 352 F.2d 649, 652 (1965). Defendant's argument resolves itself into an attack upon the use of the information as distinguished from the grand jury's indictment. The use of an information as a formal criminal charge found recognition as early as the beginning days of the nation. Act of April 30, 1790, c. 9 § 32; 1 Stat. 119. Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 47 S. Ct. 250, 71 L. Ed. 505 (1927). Today, by use of the information for lesser crimes (and as to felonies where indictment is waived) the issues of probable cause and guilt become merged and tried together. The law has traditionally and constitutionally discriminated between procedural safeguards guaranteed for felonies and those involved in lesser offenses. Duke v. United States, 301 U.S. 492, 57 S. Ct. 835, 81 L. Ed. 1243 (1937). Cf. Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147, 89 S. Ct. 1503, 23 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1969).
Defendant concedes that multiple misdemeanors which arise out of multiple acts may be prosecuted by information. Kempe v. United States, 151 F.2d 680, 685 (8 Cir. 1945). However, it is claimed that the information here charges only a single act under two separate counts, that is, possession and sale, each punishable up to one year and together punishable up to two years. Defendant therefore argues that he was actually charged in substance with only one offense which could be punished in excess of one year imprisonment and that he is entitled to be charged by indictment under Rule 7(a).
Laws governing illicit drug traffic which exact multiple control are in no sense intended to be single or identical in scope. See Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 78 S. Ct. 1280, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1405 (1958); United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 86 S. Ct. 773, 15 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1966). It is equally clear that Congress through the passage of § 331(q) (2) [sale] and § 331(q) (3) [possession] intended several regulatory controls against a "social evil as deleterious as it is difficult to combat * * *." 357 U.S. at 389, 78 S. Ct. at 1283. See White v. United States, 399 F.2d 813 (8 Cir. 1968). To prove a sale under § 331(q) (2) requires different evidential proof than proof of possession under § 331(q) (3).3 These are clearly separate offenses both chargeable by information under Rule 7(a). See Whalen v. United States, 398 F.2d 286 (8 Cir. 1968); Rich v. United States, 389 F.2d 334 (8 Cir. 1968).
Furthermore, even if we could assume defendant's argument to be true, this would not invalidate the use of the information to charge multiple misdemeanors constituting a single offense. Where a defendant is guilty of multiple violations constituting only one crime, barring circumstances not present here,4 the remedial function of appellate jurisdiction need extend only to instructions for corrective sentencing. Cf. United States v. Lodwick, 410 F.2d 1202 (8 Cir. 1969).
Under Rule 9(a) in order for a warrant of arrest to be issued by filing of an information, the latter must be under oath in conformity with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See United States v. Pickard, 207 F.2d 472, 475 (9 Cir. 1953). Under Rule 7(a), the oath of office of the United States Attorney is deemed to be of sufficient integrity to support the information itself. See Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 5-6, 47 S. Ct. 250, 71 L. Ed. 505 (1927)
Nor do we acknowledge defendant's claim of prejudice on the ground that the preliminary hearing is now a substantive right of discovery. Cf. Blue v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 342 F.2d 894, 901 (1964), discussed in Crump v. Anderson, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 173, 352 F.2d 649 (1965), and Sciortino v. Zampano, 385 F.2d 132 (2 Cir. 1967). As Judge Gibson said in Spinelli:
"Though the preliminary hearing provided for in Rule 5(c) may be a practical tool for discovery by the accused, the only legal justification for its existence is to protect innocent accuseds from languishing in jail on totally baseless accusations * * *." Spinelli v. United States, 382 F.2d 871, 887 (8 Cir. 1967), rev'd on other grounds, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969).
" [T]he test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether proof of any additional fact, not constituting an element of one of the offenses, is required to sustain a conviction on the other."
See Milanovich v. United States, 365 U.S. 551, 81 S. Ct. 728, 5 L. Ed. 2d 773 (1961)