Case Name: WILD v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1923-06-09
Citations: 291 F. 334
Docket Number: No. 5926
Parties: WILD v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 291
Pages: 334–339

Head Matter:
WILD v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
June 9, 1923.)
No. 5926.
1. Indictment and information <@=> 133(1)—Sufficiency cannot be tested by objecting to evidence.
Sufficiency of indictment cannot be tested by objection to introduction of testimony.
2. Receiving stolen goodsi <@=>7(5)—Indictment for receiving, selling, and retaining stolen property should allege that property was stolen from the United States.
An indictment for receiving and concealing and having and retaining property belonging to the United States with intent to convert it should have alleged that the property was stolen from the United States.
3. Indictment and information >@=>202(5)—Failure to charge directly that property received and retained had been stolen held merely a defect of form.
Indictment for receiving and concealing and having and retaining property belonging to the United States with intent to convert it, which recites that when defendant received the property he knew that it had been stolen from the United States by another, necessarily implied that it had been stolen, and failure to so allege was, mere defect of form, not rendering the indictment insufficient after verdict, under Kev. St. § 1025 (Comp. St. § 1691).
4. Indictment and information <@=>180—No variance because name by which person referred to in indictment was not true name.
Where man from whom it was alleged defendant received property stolen from the United States was called and known by name stated in the indictment, there was no variance, though that was not his true name.
5. Receiving stolen gqods <@=>7 (6)—No variance because ail property described in indictment had not been stolen.
Under indictment for' receiving, concealing, and retaining property stolen from the United States, there was no variance or failure of proof because evidence failed to show that all the property alleged was stolen; it being sufficient if any part of it was stolen.
6. Criminal law <@=>1036(8)—Insufficiency of evidence may be reviewed, though not questioned at trial.
To correct obvious errors and prevent manifest injustice, an appellate court may review the evidence for purpose of determining its sufficiency to sustain indictment, though sufficiency was not questioned at the trial.
7. Criminal law <@=>1036(8)—Discretion to review evidence, though not questioned at the trial, not exercised, when defendant guilty of same offense.
Where it was not seriously disputed that, if defendant was not guilty of receiving, concealing, and retaining stolen property, he was guilty of stealing the property, the court will not exercise its discretion to review sufficiency of evidence, when not questioned at the trial.
8. Criminal law <@=>1036(2), 1186(4)—New trial not granted for improper cross-examination, when not objected to, and no request to disregard made, and influence on jury being doubtful.
New trial held not to be granted on appeal because of improper cross-examination of defendant, where no objection was made, and no instruction to disregard the matters brought out was requested, especially where it was not clear that jury were influenced thereby, in view of Judicial Code, § 269, as amended by Act February 26, 1919 (Oomp. St. Ann. Supp.. 1919, § 1246). ' • •
Kenyon, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Oklahoma.
H. B. Wild was convicted of certain offenses, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Seymour Stedman, of Chicago, 111. (Charles H. Soelke and Swan M. Johnson, both of Chicago, 111., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
John W. Scothorn, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl. (W. A. Maurer, U. S. Atty., of El Reno, Okl., and Roy St. Lewis, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.
Before LEWIS and KENYON, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.

Opinion:
JOHNSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff in error was convicted upon four counts of an indictment charging violations of section 48 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. § 10215). It is alleged in the first count of the indictment that the defendant, on or about the 12th day of April, 1920, received and concealed with intent to convert to his own use certain described property belonging to the United States. In the second count it is alleged that the defendant, on or about the 15th day of April, 1920, received and concealed certain other property, describing it, belonging to the United States,- with intent to convert the same to his own use. The third count charged the defendant with'having and retaining in his possession, with intent to convert to his own use, the property described in the first count. The fourth count charged the defendant with having and retaining in his possession, with intent to convert to his own úse, the property described in the second count.
It is alleged in each count of the indictment that the defendant received the property from one Novak, knowing that all of it had theretofore been stolen from the United^ States by the said Novak. It is not directly alleged in any of the counts of the indictment that the property had theretofore been stolen from the United States by Novak. Because of this defect the defendant at the beginning of the trial objected to the introduction of any evidence by the government. The objection was overruled, and exception taken. The ruling has been assigned as error. The sufficiency of an indictment -cannot be tested by objection to the introduction of testimony. McSpadden v. United States, 224 Fed. 935, 140 C. C. A. 413; Grant v. United States, 252 Fed. 692, 164 C. C. A. 532.
Later the defendant moved on the same ground to arrest the judgment. The ruling of the court denying the motion has been assigned as error. Unquestionably it should have been alleged in the indictment that the property had theretofore been-stolen from the United States by Novak, and it is not improper in this connection to remark that such omissions as this could easily be avoided, if government counsel would take the precaution to have the statute before them when drawing indictments.
The indictment recites that the property belonged to the United States when the defendant received it, and that he knew it had theretofore been stolen from the United States by Novak. This language necessarily implies that the property had theretofore been stolen from the United States. This defect in the indictment must be regarded, after verdict, as one of form, under section 1025 of the Revised Stat-1 utes, which provides that no indictment shall be deemed insufficient "by reason of any defect or imperfection of form only, which shall not tend to the prejudice of the defendant." Dunbar v. United States, 156 U. S. 185, 15 Sup. Ct. 325, 39 L. Ed. 390; Rosen v. United States, 161 U. S. 29, 16 Sup. Ct. 434, 480, 40 L. Ed. 606; Price v. United States, 165 U. S. 311, 17 Sup. Ct. 366, 41 L. Ed. 727; Morris v. United States, 229 Fed. 516, 143 C. C. A. 584; State v. Martin, 94 Wash. 313, 162 Pac. 356.
The man from whom it is alleged in the indictment the defendant received the stolen property was called and known by the name stated in the indictment. The contention that there was a variance, because this was not his true name, is untenable. If the name by which a person is usually called and known is stated in the indictment, it is sufficient. Commonwealth v. Desmarteau, 82 Mass. (16 Gray) 1; Bishop's New Criminal Procedure, § 686.
And the contention that there was a variance or failure of proof, because, as is claimed, the evidence failed to show that all of the property alleged in the several counts of the indictment was stolen, is equally without merit. It is sufficient if any part of it was stolen. People v. Fitzpatrick, 80 Cal. 538, 22 Pac. 215.
Plaintiff in error at the conclusion of the trial did not ask for a directed verdict, or in any manner raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the charges contained in the indictment. We are asked, nevertheless, to review the evidence appearing in the record for the purpose of determining this question. It is well settled that an appellate court may do this to correct obvious errors and to prevent manifest injustice. Doe v. United States, 253 Fed. 903, 166 C. C. A. 3; Anderson v. United States (C. C. A.) 264 Fed. 75; McNutt v. United States (C. C. A.) 267 Fed. 670; Holland v. United States (C. C. A.) 268 Fed. 244.
It is not claimed there is not evidence tending to show that the defendant was guilty of serious wrongdoing in respect of much of the property described in the indictment; it is only contended that the evidence was insufficient to show that he was guilty of the offenses charged in the indictment; in other words, it is claimed that the evidence failed to show that the defendant was guilty of receiving, etc., property of the United States, knowing that it had theretofore been stolen while it is not seriously disputed that the .evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of larceny, if he had been charged, under section 332 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. § 10506), with counseling Novak to steal the property. Counsel in their brief frankly say:
"In conclusion we shall call the court's attention to the fact that one who counsels, aids, and advises, or counsels, is an accessory. Section 332, Penal Code. The accessory by federal law is made a principal, and is punishable as a principal. If Wild was guilty on the testimony of Novak, of aiding, assisting, counseling, and advising, he might be punished as a principal for robbery or larceny. This was not the charge made against him in the indictment. We call the court's attention to this, for the purpose, of urging the distinction between robbers', larceny, and receiving stolen property in considering the evidence 'in this case." °
The contention of counsel would demand careful consideration if based upon rulings of the trial court duly excepted to. But that is not the case. The appeal is that the appellate court shall of its own motion go into the record for the purpose of determining whether the thief has not been improperly charged and convicted as a receiver or concealer of the stolen property. It is not suggested that the judgment in this case would not be a bar to a prosecution of the defendant for the larceny; but, even if possible, such a prosecution is too improbable to be seriously considered. In our opinion the situation does not justify the exercise of the judicial discretion of the court. Robins v. United States (C. C. A.) 262 Fed. 126; Sturtz v. United States (C. C. A.) 268 Fed. 350.
Complaint is made in respect of the cross-examination of the defendant, who testified as a witness in his own behalf. It is true that he was cross-examined about matters wholly outside of the issues. Much of the cross-examination, not only did not tend to prove any of the charges contained in the indictment, but was not even competent for the purpose of affecting his credibility as a witness. No objection was made at the time, nor was the trial court ever asked to instruct the jury to disregard the matters brought out by the improper cross-examination. Evidently the impropriety of the cross-examination was an afterthought.
Aside from the state of the record; there is a good and sufficient reason why a new trial should not be granted. We are by no means convinced that the jury was influenced to return the verdict they did by reason of the improper cross-examination of the defendant. See section 269 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of Rebruary 26, 1919 (40 Stat. 1181 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 1246]). Under the evidence and the instructions of the court, the jury was full}7 justified in finding the defendant guilty.
The other matters argued, which are not reviewable on account of the state of the record, require no special notice.
The judgment should be, and accordingly is, affirmed.
@ss>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests^ & Indexes