Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/564/934/83237/
Timestamp: 2019-10-22 03:19:20
Document Index: 156824502

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 641', '§ 641', '§ 641', '§ 641', '§ 641', '§ 2341']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Richard Speir and Gary Puffer, Defendants-appellants, 564 F.2d 934 (10th Cir. 1977) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1977 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Richard Speir and Gary Puffer, Defendants-appellant...
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Richard Speir and Gary Puffer, Defendants-appellants, 564 F.2d 934 (10th Cir. 1977)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 564 F.2d 934 (10th Cir. 1977) Argued and Submitted Sept. 21, 1976. Submitted En Banc Sept. 12, 1977. Decided Nov. 10, 1977
The Government makes no convincing argument that there was proof of such knowledge on the part of Speir and Puffer. Instead the primary response by the Government is that statements in the Findley and Baltrunas cases requiring knowledge that the stolen property belonged to the Government were in error, that they were dictum, and that we should clarify our interpretation of § 641 to remove the requirement of such knowledge, in accord with the reasoning of other courts of appeals. We agree that we should reexamine Findley and Baltrunas in light of these opinions and the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 95 S. Ct. 1255, 43 L. Ed. 2d 541.
We feel it clear that Findley and Baltrunas did hold that knowledge that the stolen property belonged to the Government is required in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 641. In Findley we relied on Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288, and Souza v. United States, 304 F.2d 274 (9th Cir.) and held that it was incumbent on the trial judge to advise the jury that "it was necessary for the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the property involved belonged to, and was stolen from, the government." 362 F.2d at 922-23.
On reexamination in light of Feola we must agree that the wording of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (1970) and its legislative history, analyzed in Morissette, show no intent that it be a required element of the federal offense that the defendant knew the stolen property belonged to the Government. See Reviser's Notes to 18 U.S.C.A. § 641; United States v. Howey, 427 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir.). Use of the common law terms such as embezzlement, larceny and the like in the statute, without a contrary direction, may be taken as satisfaction with widely accepted definitions, not as a departure from them. See Morissette, supra, 342 U.S. at 263, 72 S. Ct. 240. And "(i)t was not an essential part of the common law larceny-type offense that the thief knew who owned the property he took; it was enough that he knew it did not belong to him." United States v. Howey, supra, 427 F.2d at 1018.
The requirement in § 641 that the stolen property be a "record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States . . ." furnishes the jurisdictional basis for the federal offense. However, knowledge of such jurisdictional facts is not generally an element of the required intent under federal statutes. See Feola, supra, 420 U.S. 684-85, 694-95, 95 S. Ct. 1255; United States v. Newson, 531 F.2d 979, 981 (10th Cir.). In Newson, we dealt with convictions of a substantive offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2341 of interstate transportation with fraudulent intent of false securities and of conspiracy to commit that offense. In upholding the convictions without proof of knowledge of the jurisdictional facts we stated, id. at 981:
The extent of cross-examination is discretionary with the trial judge and reversible error occurs only when the exercise of that discretion is prejudicial, United States v. Jackson, 482 F.2d 1167, 1176 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1159, 94 S. Ct. 918, 39 L. Ed. 2d 111, which we do not find here. The court has the right, within reasonable bounds, to question witnesses for the purpose of eliciting the truth. United States v. Latimer, 548 F.2d 311, 314 (10th Cir.). We also feel the trial judge did not exceed the bounds of his discretion in this respect. Jordan v. United States, 295 F.2d 355, 356 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 975, 82 S. Ct. 479, 7 L. Ed. 2d 438.
The trial court made some comments on the evidence, notably about the strength of the "real evidence" consisting of the stump matches, which were undoubtedly beneficial to the prosecution. Nevertheless, such comments may be made within reasonable bounds, provided that the court makes it clear that the jury is not bound by his views and that all questions of fact are submitted for the jury to decide. See Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 469, 53 S. Ct. 698, 77 L. Ed. 1321. While in all these comments the trial court pointedly favored the prosecution's view on the case and more restraint would have been desirable, we cannot agree that reversible error occurred. Other arguments including complaints about the instructions are made but on this record we find no prejudicial error calling for reversal.
See United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 430 U.S. 909, 97 S. Ct. 1181, 51 L. Ed. 2d 585; United States v. Crutchley, 502 F.2d 1195, 1201 (3d Cir.); United States v. Smith, 489 F.2d 1330, 1333-34 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 994, 94 S. Ct. 2407, 40 L. Ed. 2d 773; United States v. Denmon, 483 F.2d 1093, 1094-95 (8th Cir.); United States v. Boyd, 446 F.2d 1267, 1274 (5th Cir.); United States v. Howey, supra, 427 F.2d at 1018
It is their view that value is an essential element of the felony offense. Stevens v. United States, 297 F.2d 664 (10th Cir.). Proof on the issue is required and a felony conviction under the statute without it cannot stand. United States v. DiGilio, 538 F.2d 972, 981 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 733, 50 L. Ed. 2d 749. Here there was evidence that defendant Black, or possibly Speir (the record is contradictory but probably the undercover agent intended to identify Black as making these statements, see R. I, 88-89), had said to an undercover agent three weeks before the November 27 events that prices would be around $4 for pinyon and $5 for spruce. Defendant Black also said he thought they could "probably reduce the price of $3.50 for pinyon and $4.50 for spruce." (R. I, 88-89). Two days later the agent phoned back and Black said that he would probably furnish some trees for $2, some that he paid stumpage for and some that he didn't, laughing about that. (Id. at 90).