Court Opinion

ID: 9444599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:05:53.657137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:55.608565
License: Public Domain

MAJOR, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In my view, the letter set forth in the indictment does not constitute an offense under the provision of the statute relied upon. Assuming that the letter contained a threat, which I think it did, that is not sufficient. It must be a threat “to injure the person of the addressee or of another.” It is a matter of speculation and guess as to whether the threat was directed at the person of the addressee , or some other person, for instance, a member of the addressee’s family. More than that, Congress has not penalized the mere mailing of a threatening letter but has carefully enumerated the persons against whom the threat must be directed and the objects to be accomplished. For instance, in a paragraph following that relied upon it is provided that the sending of a threatening letter “with or without a name or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other person and containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another, or the reputation of a deceased person” shall constitute a crime.
As I already stated, there is no way to ascertain from the letter as to whom or to what the threat was directed. The indictment charged that it was a threat £0 injUre the person of the addressee, but it can be as readily speculated that it was a threat directed at the property or the reputation either of the addressee or some other person. The penalty provided for a violation of this latter section is a fjne 0f not more than $500 or imprisonment of not more than two years or both, -while the penalty provided for a violation of the section relied upon is a fine 0f not m0re than $5,000 or imprisonment 0f not to exceed twenty years, or both. with this disparity of punishment between the two provisions, it appears to me that there should at least be sufficient certainty to ascertain which section, if either, has been violated.
I would reverse the judgment.