Document: 347 U.S. 1 74 S.Ct. 358 98 L.Ed. 435 PEREIRA et al.v.UNITED STATES. No. 50. Argued Oct. 20, 1953. Decided Feb. 1, 1954. [Syllabus from pages 1-2 intentionally omitted] Mr. Charles L. Sylvester, New York City, for petitioners. John R. Wilkins, Washington, D.C., respondent. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. The petitioners, Pereira and Brading, were convicted in District Court Western Texas under three counts an indictment charging violation mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. (Supp. V) § 1341, U.S.C.A. National Stolen Property Act, 2314, a conspiracy to commit aforesaid substantive offenses, 371, 371. Appeals Fifth Circuit affirmed. 202 F.2d 830. This granted certiorari consider questions which are important proper administration criminal justice federal courts. 345 990, 73 1134, 97 1399. 2 On April 19, 1951, Mrs. Gertrude Joyce, wealthy widow, fifty-six years old, her younger half-sister, Miss Katherine Joyner, accosted by petitioner Brading as they about enter hotel El Paso, Texas. Joyce sister had just arrived their home Roswell, Mexico, preparing register at hotel. identified himself, assisted them parking car, invited into bar meet friend his. They accepted. was Pereira, thirty-three age. After few drinks, men suggested that all go Juarez dinner. women accepted, after dinner visited some night clubs with devoted himself telling meeting 'epoch' his life. He mentioned he getting divorce. same performance repeated following night. When said would like return Roswell women, two be house guests, commenced make love she responded attentions. May 3, exhibited telegram presence stating divorce on 27, but not receive share property settlement, $48,000, month. 3 represented prosperous oil man, dealing leases, owner operator several profitable hotels. then told lose opportunity profits excellent leases because delay persuaded lend $5,000. 4 take trip together 'become better acquainted.' borrowed $1,000 finance trip. joined Wichita Falls, continued far Dallas. discussed purported business Denver during this part stated giving hotels divorced wife, intended reenter fall. In meantime, going 'play little oil' Brading. Hot Springs, Arkansas, proposed marriage reappeared scene, expressing great joy impending marriage. have withdraw further deals get assure steady income. 5 married 25, Kansas Missouri. While there, procure funds enable him complete arrangement purchase Cadillac through friend. She secured check $6,956.55 Los Angeles broker, drawn California bank, endorsed over Pereira. price car $4,750, instructed balance proceeds her. kept change. 6 From time on, words conduct buy Greenville, took Joyce—by Pereira—to see it, option its $78,000 supposed 'E. J. Wilson.' asked wife if join venture advance $35,000 toward $78,000. agreed. It agreed, between sell securities possessed Angeles, bank money choosing Paso. June 15, received Citizens Bank brokers gave it who collection State cleared, 18, cashier's favor 7 At five o'clock morning victim driving neighboring town sign left promising noon. Instead picked up Paso Bank, cashed Cadillac. 8 That last saw either petitioner, or money, until trial seven months later. November 16, 1951. 9 record clearly shows man; owner; there no settlement pending Denver; arranged concerning sent leases; deal wholly fictitious; Wilson' only true statements petitioners made concerned Cadillac, them. contrived papers used air authenticity deals. short, activities followed familiar pattern 'confidence game.' 10 challenge admissibility Joyce's testimony being based confidential communications Petitioners do now contend competent witness against ex-husband. concede removed any incompetency. is generally accepted rule. Wigmore, Evidence, 2237; 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, 204. rely proposition while removes incompetency, does terminate privilege marital communications. 2341(2); 379. correct statement rule, inapplicable involved case, since facts cannot these confidential. Although presumed confidential, presumption may overcome proof showing private. Blau v. United States, 340 332, 71 301, 95 306; Wolfle 291 7, 54 279, 78 617. third party negatives privacy. 2336. So too, intention information conveyed transmitted person. Id., privilege, generally, extends utterances, acts. 2337. A review reveals primarily both, acts did amount communications, trips taken parties, own Much related matters occurring prior Any residuum been so slight immaterial. Cf. States Mitchell, Cir., 137 1006, 1009. 11 court below error admitting testimony. 12 conviction ground evidence mailing transporting stolen interstate, gist respective offenses. These contentions without merit. statute provides: 13 's 1341. Frauds swindles 14 'Whoever, having devised intending devise scheme artifice defraud, obtaining means false fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, furnish unlawful use counterfeit spurious coin, obligation, security, other article, anything intimated held out such purpose executing attempting do, places post office authorized depository matter, matter thing whatever Post Office Department, takes receives therefrom, thing, knowingly causes according direction thereon, place directed person whom addressed, shall fined more than imprisoned years, both.' Act 15 2314. Transportation goods, securities, monies, articles counterfeiting 16 'Whoever transports interstate foreign commerce wares, merchandise, value $5,000 more, knowing stolen, converted * *. 17 'Shall $10,000 ten both. *' To constitute provisions, necessary show actually mailed transported themselves; sufficient caused done. 2(b), 2(b). 19 deny offered establishes planned defraud Joyce. Collecting essential scheme. For purpose, There substantial California, ordinary course business. 20 elements effense (1) (2) letter, etc., contemplate mails element. Young, 232 155, 34 303, 548. Here, established, incident scheme, established. remains question whether 'caused' mailing. easily answered. Where one act knowledge will follow business, where can reasonably foreseen, even though intended, 'causes' used. Kenofskey, 243 440, 37 438, 61 836. conclusion Pereira's count follows naturally factors. 21 As charge causing commerce, validity apparent. Sections 1341 2314 Title separate defendant both charges arise single series acts, long each requires fact other. Gavieres 220 338, 31 421, 55 489; Blockburger 284 299, 52 180, 76 306. certain has obtained fraud, commerce. obvious offense different proof. require specific used, done pursuant required charge. Sheridan, 329 379, 67 91 359. check, out-of-state collection, common checks must drawee send across state lines. supra, page 391, 338. charged jury 'aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, procures' commission responsible directly committed himself. See 2(a), 2(a). Nye & Nissen 336 613, 69 766, 93 919. found guilty light instruction. Appeals, 168 846, affirmed supported charge.* 22 clear convincing participant beginning end. initial contact victim. $5,000, loan investment nonexistent leases. present participated conversations buying lease. engaged telephone answering service name Wilson,' broker. established authorizing extension hotel, signing supplied excuse departure victim, went collect check. fled money. 23 'aiding abetting' instruction entitled draw inferences supplying lack connecting abundant circumstantial offered. properly theory. ample petitioners' collaboration close cooperation could conclude aided, abetted, counseled charged. 619, 769. passed sufficiency sustain Brading's We reason upset findings courts below. 24 allege crimes constitutes double jeopardy. settled law country distinct crimes, plea jeopardy defense Pinkerton 328 640, 643—644, 66 1180, 1181-1182, 90 1489, cases cited therein. Only identical 489. offenses commission; accomplished individual. essence agreement and/or transport known fraud. depend agreement, principal actor. Similarly, turn agreement. Aiding, abetting, counseling terms presuppose existence Those broader application, making when consciously shares act, regardless conspiracy. 620, 770. Thus, convictions offenses—proof States—and identical, identical. 25 agreed furtherance exist inception defraud. If time, sufficient. denied. automobile. brokers. subject purchasing broached, broker stocks obtain purchase. contacting extending doubt involved. what we regard also intent include certainly improper allow determine circumstances shared appropriate collecting unreasonable suppose closely associated details realization goal. jury's finding 26 foregoing reasons, judgment 27 Affirmed. 28 REED consideration decision case. 29 MINTON, BLACK DOUGLAS join, concurring dissenting part. 30 monumental perpetrated fashion confidence game disputed. Such punished States. cognizance carry fraudulently carried Government Count letter Texas, date $35,286.78, I affirm except counts. convict counts, Angeles. proved direct evidence, proved. expected known, mails. Peoni, 100 F.2d, 401, 402. conspiracy, anticipate might mails, subsequently them, bound. 32 Mail Fraud contemplates (3) plan. violated 33 Concededly, participate thirty-five thousand dollar convicted, all, aider abettor. 618, 769, establish carrying Three financial transactions opinion. First, transaction. No there. transaction liquidated turned shown came from, and, important, mailed, case $35,286.78. 35 upon based, selling whence securing endorsement, collection. events occurred. next appeared completion constituting ostensibly day collected bank. knew believe out-of-town necessitating placed 36 Lacking proof, element crime charged, namely, foresee need originally plan, natural, foreseeable well assumed cash given or, local reasonable infer receiving know process inference added piling inference, absence simply guessing penitentiary. good guessing, 38 abettor punish, using lines? think not, unless willing say aiding abetting consummation aid abet scintilla aided abetted 39 Bollenbach 326 607, 402, 350, offense. possession soon theft Minnesota warrant support 'presumption' thief set aside. latter untenable. 40 untenable handling lines, thereby crimes. another fact. Looney Metropolitan Co., 200 480, 488, 306, 50 564; Ross, 92 281, 707. argues basis demonstrates conspired design. however, here

Category: 0