Court Opinion

ID: 9489687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:21:27.703783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:39.626294
License: Public Domain

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Because I conclude that count 1 of the indictment is barred by the statute of limitations, I respectfully dissent. I would reverse on the statute of limitations issue and not reach the sufficiency of evidence issue.
In this circuit, a criminal statute of limitations “operate[s] as a jurisdictional limitation upon the power to prosecute and punish.” Waters v. United States, 328 F.2d 739, 743 (10th Cir.1964); see United States v. Cooper, 956 F.2d 960, 961-62 (10th Cir.1992) (acknowledging and reaffirming Waters). Thus, the challenge raised by Stoner to the timeliness of count 1 goes to the very ability of the district court to convict and punish her for the charges contained in count 1.
Stoner was charged in count 1 with violating the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371. Section 371 does not contain an express statute of limitations; thus, the general five-year limitations period for non-capital offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 3282, applies to conspiracies charged under § 371. See, e.g., United States v. Gornto, 792 F.2d 1028, 1033 n. 3 (11th Cir.1986). To satisfy the statute of limitations, the prosecution must show the conspiracy continued to exist five years prior to the indictment, and “at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiratorial agreement was performed within that period.” United States v. Hauck, 980 F.2d 611, 613 (10th Cir.1992).
The indictment in this case was returned on March 16, 1994, and contained four counts. Count 1 of the indictment alleged the scope of the charged conspiratorial agreement was to “willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree to embezzle and convert to [the conspirators’] own use moneys belonging to the Ponca Tribe, an Indian Tribal organization, whieh was at all times subject to the laws of the United States relating to Indian Affairs, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1163.” Aplt’s App. at 2. Count 1 further alleged the conspiracy took place “[f]rom in or about March 1988, and continuing thereafter until in or about August 1989, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury.” Id. In the section of count 1 entitled “OVERT ACTS,” five specific overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were alleged, all occurring between February 5, 1988, and March 13, 1989. Id. at 3-4. These acts include: (1) the opening of a burial program bank account on February 5, 1988; (2) Stoner directing issuance of a check in the amount of $1,000 from the burial account on January 31, 1988; (3) Stoner cosigning a check in the amount of $1,000 from the loan fund account on May 16,1988; (4) Stoner cosigning a check in the amount of $800 from the loan fund account on February 23, 1989; and (5) Stoner cosigning a check in the amount of $800 from the loan fund account on March 13, 1989. Id. The three remaining counts charged Stoner with embezzlement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163, alleging she had converted tribal funds on three occasions after March 16,1989.
On the first day of her jury trial, Stoner filed a motion to dismiss count 1 on the grounds that it failed to allege commission of an overt act during the five-year limitations period preceding the filing of the indictment (i.e., March 16,1989 to March 16,1994). The motion was summarily overruled by the trial court, and Stoner was subsequently convicted on count 1 and acquitted on the remaining three embezzlement counts. On appeal, Stoner again urges that count 1 was time-barred and should have been dismissed.
The issue raised by Stoner, whether a conspiracy charge under § 371 requires the *539government to allege a timely overt act in the indictment, is one of first impression in this circuit. Notably, however, the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have previously addressed this question and agree that an indictment charging a conspiracy under § 371 must allege a timely overt act.
In United States v. Davis, 533 F.2d 921 (5th Cir.1976), defendants Sammie Lee Davis and Jasper Edward Baccus were charged in a single-count indictment, returned on September 5, 1974, of conspiring, in violation of § 371, to knowingly and willfully make and cause to be made false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations as to material facts in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. At the district court level, Davis and Baccus moved for dismissal of the indictment prior to trial, and moved for judgments of acquittal during trial, asserting the indictment failed to allege an offense within the five-year limitations period. Defendants’ motions were denied by the trial court. Defendants appealed their convictions, and continued to assert that prosecution of the conspiracy was barred by the statute of limitations because the charged offense occurred more than five years prior to the return of the September 5,1974 indictment.
In addressing defendants’ challenge to the timeliness of the indictment, the Fifth Circuit began by reviewing the essential elements of a conspiracy under § 371 and by noting that, in a conspiracy prosecution under § 371, the prosecution “must allege and prove the commission of at least one overt act by one of the conspirators within [the five years prior to the return of the indictment] in furtherance of the conspiratorial agreement.” Id. at 926. Continuing, the court noted that, before determining whether a conspiracy charge is time-barred, “it is essential to delimit the scope of the conspiratorial agreement alleged in the indictment, ‘for it is that which determines both the duration of the conspiracy, and whether the act relied on as an overt act may properly be regarded as in furtherance of the conspiracy.’ ” Id. (quoting Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 397, 77 S.Ct. 963, 970, 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957)).
Turning to the indictment before it, the Fifth Circuit noted it contained only one count which charged defendants with conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by knowingly and willfully making false statements as to material facts of a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. In light of the narrow scope of this indictment, the court concluded the conspiracy ended with the last false statement to the Department of Labor, which was made on August 13, 1969, and did not encompass the Department of Labor’s subsequent awarding of a contract to defendants, within the limitations period, based upon defendants’ false statements.
The court also rejected the government’s assertion that proof at trial of an overt act that occurred within the limitations period, but which was not alleged in the indictment, was sufficient to satisfy the statute of limitations. Although the court agreed with the government that proof of a substituted unal-leged overt act for an alleged overt act did not constitute a fatal variance and would be sufficient to support a conviction for conspiracy, the court stated the following as regards the statute of limitations issue:
In a conspiracy prosecution for violating § 371 the statute of limitations must be computed from the date of the last overt act of which there is appropriate allegation and proof. We hold therefore that for purposes of the statute of limitations the overt acts alleged in the indictment and proved at trial mark the duration of the conspiracy.
533 F.2d at 929, emphasis in original, citations omitted.
In United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 933, 107 S.Ct. 407, 93 L.Ed.2d 359 (1986), the Eleventh Circuit reached the same conclusion as the Fifth Circuit did in Davis. However, the Eleventh Circuit distinguished between non-overt act conspiracy charges and conspiracy charges, such as those under § 371, which require the government to prove an overt act:
We hold that on a non-overt-act conspiracy charge, the indictment satisfies the requirements of the statute of limitations if *540the government alleges and proves, at trial or pretrial, that the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. We further hold that on conspiracy charges which require listing of overt acts, the statute of limitations is satisfied if the last overt act alleged and proved occurs within the limitations period.
Id. at 1532-33, citations omitted. The Eleventh Circuit also held that the day following the last overt act alleged in the indictment (in an overt act case) “is the beginning date for calculation” of the statute of limitations. Id. at 1533.
Because I find both Davis and Butler persuasive, I would adopt the pleading requirements set forth therein and hold that, for statute of limitations purposes, an indictment charging a conspiracy violation under § 371 must allege at least one timely overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Unfortunately, the majority backs away from this bright-line approach and concludes it is applicable “only as to indictments that do not allege that the conduct constituting the conspiracy occurred within the statute of limitations period.” Majority opinion at 532. The majority then proceeds to conclude the approach is inapplicable here because count 1 of the indictment alleged Stoner “committed- or caused to be committed various overt acts ... including, but not limited to,” the five specific overt acts listed in count land because count 1 alleges, in general terms, that the charged conspiracy continued “until in or about August 1989, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury.” Id. at 534. According to the majority, the general allegation of the conspiracy’s ending date, though not specific nor tied to any particular overt act, is sufficient to satisfy the statute of limitations when read in conjunction with the boilerplate language indicating the list of specific overt acts alleged in count 1 is not exclusive. In short, the majority is willing to assume some unspecified overt act as committed after March 16,1989, and that count 1 therefore satisfied the statute of limitations.
There are several reasons why I cannot accept the majority’s conclusions. First, the majority has failed to cite a single ease in support of its conclusion that the allegations upon which it relies, i.e., the boilerplate language indicating the overt acts alleged in the indictment are not exclusive and the general allegations of the conspiracy’s ending date, are sufficient to satisfy the statute of limitations in a ease involving an overt act conspiracy charge. Second, because these types of allegations are present in virtually all federal conspiracy indictments, the majority’s holding will effectively prevent any defendant from ever mounting a successful challenge to the timeliness of an overt act conspiracy charge. In fact, the majority’s holding will arguably invite prosecutors to pursue outdated conspiracy charges by simply alleging in an indictment, in a general manner, that a conspiracy continued into the statutory limitations period and that various unlisted overt acts occurred within the limitations period. See generally Grünewald, 353 U.S. at 404, 77 S.Ct. at 973 (“Prior cases in this Court have repeatedly warned that we will view with disfavor attempts to broaden the already pervasive and wide-sweeping nets of conspiracy prosecutions.”). Third, the majority’s approach will allow the government to prosecute a defendant on the basis of facts not presented to a grand jury. See United States v. Wood, 958 F.2d 963, 974 (10th Cir.1992) (holding that “an indictment must allege sufficient facts to ensure that the defendant is prosecuted on the basis of facts presented to the grand jury”). Presumably, if a grand jury is able to determine the ending date of a conspiracy, it has before it some evidence of the final overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy. Here, count 1 of the indictment alleged the conspiracy spanned a period from “in or about March 1988” to “in or about August 1989.” Thus, in addition to alleging the ending date, it does not seem unreasonable or “hyper-technical” to require the indictment to describe, with some degree of particularity, the overt act that gave rise to the grand jury’s conclusion as to the conspiracy’s ending date (or, at a minimum, some other timely overt act). Fourth, the majority’s approach could effectively preclude a trial court from dismissing an indictment prior to trial. Specifically, in cases that are filed close to the end of the limitations period, the general pleading of the month and year in which the conspiracy ended *541would not be sufficient to allow the trial court to determine, with particularity, whether the conspiracy charge was timely. Accordingly, the trial court would have to wait until after the government’s case-in-chief to determine whether evidence of a timely overt act had been introduced. Thus, it is conceivable that a defendant could be put to the time, expense, and public humiliation of a criminal trial, only to have the trial court eventually determine that the charge was untimely. Finally, it is conceivable that the majority’s approach would violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to reasonable notice of criminal charges. In particular, there is no explanation of how the ending date of a conspiracy allows a defendant to reasonably anticipate what overt act evidence will be presented at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Pinto, 838 F.2d 426, 433 (10th Cir.1988) (discussing effect of a variance between a conspiracy as charged and evidence adduced at trial).
In my opinion, count 1 is untimely. Applying the clear and understandable approach of Davis and Butler, it is apparent that none of the five specific overt acts alleged in count 1 occurred within the five-year limitations period preceding the return of the indictment. Further, count 1 cannot be salvaged by the allegations contained in counts 2-4 of the indictment. As the majority notes, count 1 does not expressly incorporate those counts by reference as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1). Nor can those counts be implicitly incorporated into count 1. Although the government argues counts 2-4 should be implicitly incorporated into the conspiracy charge and considered as alleged overt acts for statute of limitations purposes, the majority has offered persuasive reasons why implicit incorporation is inappropriate in this case. In addition to those stated reasons, I would add the following. In Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962), the Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot be convicted on the basis of facts that may not have been specifically presented to, and found by, a grand jury. In particular, the Court noted that “[t]o allow the prosecutor, or the court, to make a subsequent guess as to what was in the minds of the grand jury at the time they returned the indictment would deprive the defendant of a basic protection which the guaranty of the intervention of a grand jury was designed to secure.” Id. at 770, 82 S.Ct. at 1050. In my opinion, allowing implicit incorporation in this case would violate the precise principles announced in Russell. Although it can be argued that the substantive counts of embezzlement were undoubtedly overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, such an argument, no matter how strong, is simply a guess as to what was going on in the minds of the grand jury at the time it returned the indictment against Stoner on count 1. Moreover, the fact that the petit jury ultimately acquitted Stoner on all of the substantive embezzlement charges would seem to caution against any attempt to ascertain what the grand jury was thinking when it returned the indictment.
Several other factors also caution against allowing implicit incorporation in this ease. As noted by the majority, a distinction between conspiracy charges and continuing criminal enterprise charges has been recognized, at least implicitly, by federal courts reviewing the sufficiency of the two charges. Although several circuits have concluded a continuing criminal enterprise indictment tracking the language of the statute is sufficient by itself, and need not list the specific predicate offense of the “continuing series of violations” element, United States v. Paulino, 935 F.2d 739, 749 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 914, 112 S.Ct. 315, 116 L.Ed.2d 257 (1991); United States v. Martell, 906 F.2d 555, 558 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Amend, 791 F.2d 1120, 1125 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 930, 107 S.Ct. 399, 93 L.Ed.2d 353 (1986); United States v. Sterling, 742 F.2d 521, 526 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099, 105 S.Ct. 2322, 85 L.Ed.2d 840 (1985); Sperling v. United States, 692 F.2d 223, 226 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1131, 103 S.Ct. 3111, 77 L.Ed.2d 1366 (1983); United States v. Johnson, 575 F.2d 1347, 1354 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 907, 99 S.Ct. 1213, 1214, 59 L.Ed.2d 454 (1979), I have found no cases holding that a conspiracy indictment is sufficient if it simply alleges that “an overt act” occurred. Likewise, I have found no cases *542allowing implicit incorporation for purposes of determining the sufficiency of § 371 conspiracy charges. Further, there is arguably a distinction between flaws in an indictment that affect how sufficiently a charge is explained (e.g., as in United States v. Staggs, 881 F.2d 1527 (10th Cir.1989) (en banc), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1020, 110 S.Ct. 719, 107 L.Ed.2d 739 (1990)), or that simply constitute technical deficiencies, and flaws that affect whether or not a charge is timely. In fact, I have found no cases in which the government has been allowed to implicitly incorporate allegations from one charge to another for purposes of reviving an otherwise untimely charge. Finally, as suggested above, I find it patently unfair to allow the prosecution to revive an otherwise untimely conspiracy charge on the basis of allegations contained in substantive charges on which Stoner was acquitted.
For these reasons, I conclude that the conspiracy charge in count 1 of the indictment is time-barred, and I would therefore reverse and remand to the district court with directions to vacate Stoner’s conviction.