Opinion ID: 344317
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: conviction for aiding and abetting

Text: 28 Chenaur's second and third issues deal with his conviction as an aider and abettor. He contends that where neither Morgan nor Connelly had the requisite intent to defraud he cannot be guilty as an aider and abettor. Additionally he contends that, where Morgan or Connelly were prosecuted only by state officials for state related offenses of falsifying corporate records and embezzlement, there was no showing of guilt on the § 1006 charge and the jury confused the state and federal charges. 29 We have already found there was sufficient evidence of Morgan and Connelly's intent to defraud. There is no merit to the argument that a defendant cannot be guilty of aiding and abetting where the principals were never prosecuted under the federal statute and were given immunity in return for testifying. We clearly stated in Feldstein v. United States, 429 F.2d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 920, 91 S.Ct. 174, 27 L.Ed.2d 159 (1970), that not only was it unnecessary for the principal to be convicted, but that he need not even be identified. See also United States v. Martinez, 479 F.2d 824, 829 (1st Cir. 1973). The record shows that there was little emphasis on the state convictions of Morgan and Connelly; the jury was clearly informed that they had never been prosecuted on the federal charge. The court's instructions on the first twenty-one counts as a whole related to the federal charge and there is little reason to believe the jury did not make up their own minds about the guilt of the principals on that charge without relying on the state convictions. 30 Regarding defendant's own intent, we believe that there was sufficient evidence that he wilfully assisted the principals in the criminal venture. As already noted, he testified at one point that unless he paid Territorial and Morco, Greenwood would not buy his loans. Before he had issued all of the 21 checks involved here, he learned the address he was sending them to was that of Connelly's home. He knew Morco and Territorial were not providing real brokerage services. Morgan and Connelly were the only two people Chenaur knew to be involved in the two companies, and he knew the two were directing benefiting. He testified before the grand jury that he thought Connelly and Morgan wanted to get some extra money, that the savings and loan wasn't paying them enough money to live on. . . . T. II at 180. This is 31 sufficient to show Chenaur willingly and knowingly aided in 32 the scheme. III. THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENT AND NEED FOR CONTINUING DISCOVERY AND BILL OF PARTICULARS 33 Defendant alleges that the indictment, which closely followed the language of 18 U.S.C. § 1006, 8 was insufficient to adequately inform him of the nature of the charges against him. He contends that without alleging more specific facts, the transactions may simply have been the result of mistake or poor administration. It was this alleged deficiency in the indictment which defendant also contends necessitated the trial court's granting a motion for continuing discovery and a Bill of Particulars. Defendant's counsel complained before the trial that: 34 I would really like to know what the indictment is saying is a prohibited act, and I don't know at this time . . .. 35 and that he wanted to know the manner and means employed in the receiving of the money and why it was a violation against the United States. He urges us to follow United States v. Quinn, 365 F.2d 256 (7th Cir. 1966), which found an indictment containing the essential elements of § 1006 insufficient. 36 The sufficiency of the indictment must be judged in light of Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117-118, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 2907, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1973): 37 Our prior cases indicate that an indictment is sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427 (52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 861) (1932); United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374 (74 S.Ct. 113, 98 L.Ed. 92) (1953). It is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself, as long as those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished. United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 612 (26 L.Ed. 1135) (1882). Undoubtedly the language of the statute may be used in the general description of the offence, but it must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offence, coming under the general description, with which he is charged. United States v. Hess, 124 U.S. 483, 487 (85 S.Ct. 571, 573, 31 L.Ed. 516) (1888). 38 We believe the indictment here was sufficient. The indictment clearly charged both Chenaur (as an aider and abettor) and the principals with intent to defraud a savings and loan institution whose accounts were federally insured. It is hard to believe that where the amounts, dates and parties of each illegal transaction were specified, Chenaur needed additionally to be told the manner and means employed in the payments in order to defend himself. The initial indictment (later superseded) was returned on January 20, 1976; however, Chenaur had previously been before the grand jury on October 23, 1975, and was specifically asked if certain payments to Territorial and Morco were not kickbacks. Prior to trial, defendant had filed discovery motions and a motion for a Bill of Particulars. However, after meeting with the United States Attorney defense counsel filed a Certificate of Compliance. Subsequently, his motions were struck and defense counsel then contended he had never really received everything he requested. At trial, the government's attorneys stated they had spent approximately four hours the week before going over the government's proof with defense counsel and working out a stipulation of the facts. The trial judge had the government attorneys explain how they intended to prove the charges; the explanation substantially answered defense counsel's questions regarding who was defrauded, who had intent, and what constituted the illegal transaction. At the end, defense counsel still stated It would be nice if I knew what the government's position was. T. II, p. 26, 1. 18-19. It was the trial court's observation that defense counsel knew the government's position, but simply did not agree with it. We believe the trial court pinpointed the problem here. We have stated that: 39 A distinction is to be drawn between an indictment which fails to set forth the essential facts necessary to apprise a defendant of the crime charged and one which, though it specifies the necessary facts, fails to specify the theory upon which those facts will be proved at trial or the evidence upon which the proof will rest. Rule 7(c), F.R.Crim.P., provides that an indictment must state the essential facts constituting the offense charged, but may allege that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown or that he committed it by one or more specified means. 40 United States v. Markee, 425 F.2d 1043, 1047-48 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 847, 91 S.Ct. 93, 27 L.Ed.2d 84 (1970). Defendant here not only had the necessary facts, but the government's theory of the case he simply did not agree with the theory. We conclude that, as the defendant in United States v. Alsop, 479 F.2d 65 (9th Cir. 1973), Chenaur was well aware of the charges against him. 41 The granting of the motion for a Bill of Particulars rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Clay, 476 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1973). Since we have already found that the indictment was sufficient, it clearly was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for continuing discovery and the Bill of Particulars.