Betty Robinson v. United States, 263 F.2d 911 (10th Cir. 1959). · Go Syfert
Search
Betty Robinson v. United States, 263 F.2d 911 (10th Cir. 1959). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. J. Murray Hooker, II (ca4, 1988-03-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1959 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1959 1992 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. J. Murray Hooker, II (2×)
4th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
U.S. v. Kurka, 818 F.2d 1427, 1430-31 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. McLennan, 672 F.2d 239, 242 (1st Cir.1982); United States v. Jones, 647 F.2d 696, 699-700 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 898 , 102 S.Ct. 399 , 70 L.Ed.2d 214 (1981); United States v. Camp, 541 F.2d 739 , 740 (8th Cir.1976); United States v. Wabaunsee, 528 F.2d 1, 3 (7th Cir.1975); United States v. Berlin, 472 F.2d 1002, 1007 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 949 , 93 S.Ct. 3007 , 37 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1973); United States v. Beard, 414 F.2d 1014, 1017 (3d Cir.1969); Robinson v. United States, 263 F.2d 911, 912 (10th …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Huntley (2×)
Me. · 1984 · confidence medium
United States v. Jones, 647 F.2d 696, 699 (6th Cir.1981); United States v. Camp, 541 F.2d 737, 740-41 (8th Cir.1976); United States v. Wabaunsee, 528 F.2d 1, 4 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Berlin, 472 F.2d 1002, 1008 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 949 , 93 S.Ct. 3007 , 37 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1973); United States v. Roach, 321 F.2d 1, 3 (3d Cir.1963); Robinson v. United States, 263 F.2d 911, 912 (10th Cir.1959); Ayre v. State, 291 Md. 155, 167-68 , 433 A.2d 1150, 1158 (1981); State v. Cook, 272 N.C. 728, 731 , 158 S.E.2d 820, 822 (1968); Wilder v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 145, 148 , 225 S.E.2d 4…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ayre v. State
Md. · 1981 · confidence medium
Indeed, the cases, while not discussing the point explicitly, seem to imply that an indictment that fails to allege all the elements of the offense required by the statute will not be saved by simply citing the statutory section. [United States v. Berlin, 472 F.2d 1002, 1008 (2nd Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 949 (1973); United States v. Wabaunsee, 528 F.2d 1, 3-4 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Beard, 414 F.2d 1014, 1015-17 (3rd Cir. 1969); Robinson v. United States, 263 F.2d 911, 911-12 (10th Cir. 1959).] *169 In this case, we are especially hesitant to conclude that the missing eleme…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fred Stein v. United States
9th Cir. · 1962 · confidence medium
Appellant apparently relies on our recent decision in Hernandez v. United States, 9 Cir., 1962, 300 F.2d 114 , and on two cases from other circuits, Calhoun v. United States, 7 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 673 , and Robinson v. United States, 10 Cir., 1959, 263 F.2d 911 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Gerrold E. Stevens
10th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Nelson v. United States, 406 F.2d 1136 (10th Cir. 1969) (alleging defendant knowingly conspired to cause altered securities to be transported not sufficient when offense also includes element of fraudulent intent), Robinson v. United States, 263 F.2d 911 (10th Cir. 1959) (alleging knowingly conspired to sell drugs not sufficient when offense also includes element of known to be imported contrary to law).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Betty ROBINSON, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
5962_1.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jan 26, 1959.
263 F.2d 911
Raymond W. Weaver, Jr., Denver, Colo., for appellant., John S. Pfeiffer, Asst. U. S. Atty., for Dist. of Colo., Denver, Colo. (Donald E. Kelley, U. S. Atty., for Dist. of Colo., Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.
Phillips, Murrah, Lewis.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

Raymond W. Weaver, Jr., Denver, Colo., for appellant.

John S. Pfeiffer, Asst. U.S. Atty., for Dist. of Colo., Denver, Colo. (Donald E. Kelley, U.S. Atty., for Dist. of Colo., Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, MURRAH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant stands convicted upon the first count of a ten count indictment charging her and others with the unlawful trafficking in narcotics. Although not raised in the trial level, contention is now made that the indictment fails to state a public offense, is consequently fatally defective, and that the voiding of all proceedings resulting in appellant’s conviction is now required. We reluctantly agree to such necessity.

[*912] An indictment charging an offense under 21 U.S.C.A. § 174[1] must allege that the accused knew that the contraband was imported or brought into the United States contrary to law. The instant indictment fails to make this essential allegation [2] and thus fails to state a public offense. We are in accord with the views of the Seventh Circuit expressed in United States v. Calhoun, 257 F.2d 673, that the defect cannot be considered as an obvious technicality nor disregarded under Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. as “harmless'error.”

Reversed with instructions to dismiss the indictment.

1

“Whoever fraudulently or knowingly imports or brings any narcotic drug into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction, contrary to law, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of any such narcotic drug after being imported or brought in, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law, or conspires to commit any of such acts in violation of the laws of the United States, shall be imprisoned not less than five or more than twenty years and, in addition, may be fined not more than $20,000. * * * ”

2

“The grand jury charges:

Dissent

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge

(dissenting).

Where an indictment charges a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, the offense which is the object of the conspiracy need not be charged with that degree of particularity necessary where commission of the substantive offense, itself, is charged.[1]

Here, the indictment, in my opinion, sufficiently described and identified the substantive offense which the- appellants were conspiring to commit to apprise the appellant adequately of the charge against her and to enable her to plead double jeopardy if she should thereafter be charged with the same offense.

“That during the period from on or about the 1st day of April, 1957, to on or about the 18th day of October, 1957, at Nogales, Republic of Mexico, Tucson, Arizona, El Paso, Texas, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Denver, Colorado, and elsewhere, James W. Lewis, also known as Jimmy Six, also known as James Miller; Blair Jones, also known as Robert Jones; James G. Burley, also known as Gerald Burley; Betty Robinson, also known as Betty Burley; Margery Ann Davidson, and divers other persons to the grand jury unknown, did knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously combine, conspire, confederate and agree to fraudulently and knowingly receive, conceal, transport and sell narcotic drugs, to-wit, heroin, after the heroin is imported and brought into the United States contrary to law, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174.”

I would affirm.

1

Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77, 81, 47 S.Ct. 300, 71 L.Ed. 545; Thornton v. United States, 271 U.S. 414, 423, 46 S.Ct. 585, 70 L.Ed. 1013; Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 447, 28 S.Ct. 163, 52 L.Ed. 278; Davis v. United States, 6 Cir., 253 F.2d 24, 25; Brayton v. United States, 10 Cir., 74 E.2d 389, 390; Green v. United States, 8 Cir., 28 E.2d 965; Nicholson v. United States, 8 Cir., 79 F.2d 387, 389.