Court Opinion

ID: 9467310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:45:13.532459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:17.160815
License: Public Domain

BARRETT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting, in which McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, joins:
I respectfully dissent. I adhere to the views expressed in United States v. Sparrow, 614 F.2d 229 (10th Cir. 1980).
I cannot accept the majority’s holding that “Because there is no evidence in this case that the title certificate was altered in Utah prior to being taken to Idaho, the conviction on Count I is reversed.” This places form over substance.
It is undisputed that Sparrow had continued possession of the title. It is also undisputed that the title was forged to effectuate a fraudulent scheme. Thus, Sparrow should not be permitted to circumvent a conviction under § 2314, the essence of which is the fraudulent scheme itself. The interstate element is included solely to afford federal jurisdiction. This is particularly true when, as here, the entire fraudulent scheme encompassed by the three -count indictment had both its origin and consumation in Utah. The interstate movement of the title, completely controlled by Sparrow, was at all times the central means of accomplishing the criminal design.
For similar reasons I cannot accept the majority’s holding that “Because the proof in this case showed only that the content of the Oregon title was false, and not that it was forged or falsely made, the conviction on Count II is reversed.”
The Government established that the Oregon title was false, and falsely made. Sparrow did not own the vehicle for which he obtained an Oregon title and he had not owned it for several months. Sparrow did not have the authority to request the title, and the State of Oregon as drafter or maker, was without true legal authority to issue the certificate. As such, the title was clearly false and falsely made.