Opinion ID: 340449
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Misapplication Counts (Five-Twelve)

Text: 17 With respect to these counts, defendant's argument is that they are fatally defective, first, in failing to identify the funds allegedly misapplied. Defendant recognizes that the language of these counts is said funds, but he asserts that said must mean funds identified in that count and not funds identified in any other count, and since there is no other identification in the count itself, the count is defective. Defendant argues that a second defect is contained in the phrase cause same in the amount of . . . . He asks, Cause what? In what connection? With what result? In what direction, involving whom? 2 18 We agree with the government that the phrase said funds is a valid and permissible incorporation by reference of the allegations concerning the monies, funds and credits of the First Huntington National Bank set forth in P 12(b) of Count One, and realleged, by reference, in Counts Two-Four. Incorporation by reference is permissible, Blitz v. United States,153 U.S. 308, 317, 14 S.Ct. 924, 38 L.Ed. 725 (1894); United States v. Bryant, 430 F.2d 237, 239 (8 Cir. 1970), and we think that the word said is the functional equivalent of hereinbefore set forth, upheld as a valid incorporation by reference in Nichols v. United States, 48 F.2d 46 (5 Cir. 1931). See also United States v. Bagdasian, 291 F.2d 163 (4 Cir.), cert. denied. 19 Although we agree that the use of the phrase cause same, as alleged in Counts Five-Eleven, does not result in a model of written clarity, we nevertheless do not deem these counts legally insufficient. If the challenged phrase is omitted, defendant and others are accused of injuring and defrauding the bank by knowingly and willfully embezzling, abstracting, purloining and misapplying the bank's monies, funds and credits in stated sums, and of aiding and abetting one another in this unlawful endeavor. Since defendant is identified as Chairman of the Board of the bank and the misapplied funds as those belonging to the bank, one reading the indictment would hardly suppose that defendant did every act himself, but rather that he instructed his subordinates to do some acts necessary to the misappropriation without fully informing them as to the ultimate purpose of their actions. The phrase cause same may therefore be appropriately read to charge simply that defendant, not only as a principal and an aider and abetter, did the illegal acts himself, but also that he caused certain of them to be done by others. 20 Certainly Counts Five-Twelve are susceptible of the reading we give them; and if given that reading, they are legally sufficient. Each identifies the relevant date, the principals involved in the illegal act, and the amount of money involved. Any question about their sufficiency could have been raised before trial; and if more details were needed to plan a defense, defendant could have sought particulars. Under Chinn, his failure to do either defeats his postconviction attack on their legal sufficiency.