Ernest Santiago De Herrera v. United States, 339 F.2d 587 (10th Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Ernest Santiago De Herrera v. United States, 339 F.2d 587 (10th Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Zuni (ca10, 2008-04-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Zuni
10th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Regarding the second element, being held for a benefit, “[o]ur cases interpreting the statutory requirement that the victim be held ‘for ransom or reward or otherwise,’ ... have repeatedly observed that the statute demands only that the holding of the kidnap victim fulfill some ‘purpose desired by the captor.’ ” Id. (quoting De Herrera v. United States, 339 F.2d 587, 588 (10th Cir.1964)); see also United States v. Walker, 137 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir.1998) (finding the accused’s holding of his victim in order to have the opportunity to convince her to remain in a relationship wi…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gabaldon
10th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Our cases interpreting the statutory requirement that the victim be held “for ransom or reward or otherwise,” however, have repeatedly observed that the statute demands only that the holding of the kidnap victim fulfill some “purpose desired by the captor.” De Herrera v. United States, 339 F.2d 587, 588 (10th Cir.1964); Sarracino, 131 F.3d at 947 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Mayhew
S.D. Ohio · 2004 · confidence medium
United States v. Sarracino, 131 F.3d 943, 947 (10th Cir.1997) (stating that the “use in the statute of the words ‘or otherwise’ shows an intent by Congress to include within the offense any holding of a kid-napped person for a purpose desired by the captor”) (quoting De Herrera v. Unit-ed States, 339 F.2d 587, 588 (10th Cir. 1964)); United States v. Bordeaux, 84 F.3d 1544, 1548 (8th Cir.1996) (“We have noted that the ‘or otherwise’ requirement has been broadly interpreted and have held that it is met if the person kidnapped was taken for some reason that the defendant considered …
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hargrove
10th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
United States v. Walker, 137 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Sarracino, 131 F.3d 943, 947 (10th Cir. 1997); De Herrera v. -7- United States, 339 F.2d 587, 588 (10th Cir. 1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Sarracino
10th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
In De Herrera v. United States, 339 F.2d 587, 588 (10th Cir.1964), this court held that “[t]he use in the statute of the words ‘or otherwise’ shows an intent of Congress to include within the offense any holding of a kidnapped person for a purpose desired by the captor and negatives the need for a ransom or reward.” Moving a victim to continue a beating in a more secluded location and to prevent detection satisfies the statute.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William Dean Atchison
7th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
United States v. Martell, 4 Cir., 335 F.2d 764, 766 (1964); Clinton v. United States, 5 Cir., 260 F.2d 824, 825 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 948 , 79 S.Ct. 731 , 3 L.Ed.2d 681 (1959); Hayes v. United States, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d at 667 ; Gawne v. United States, 9 Cir., 409 F.2d 1399, 1403 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 943 , 90 S.Ct. 956 , 25 L.Ed.2d 123 (1970); 4 DeHerrera v. United States, 10 Cir., 339 F.2d 587, 588 (1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ernest Santiago DE HERRERA, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
7843.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Dec 14, 1964.
339 F.2d 587
F. Dale Crabtree, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant., John Quinn, U. S. Atty. (Ruth C. Streeter, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Lewis, Breitenstein, Hill.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant and two others were indicted for the interstate transportation of a kidnaped person and found guilty by a jury. In this direct appeal from the 7-[*588] year sentence imposed by the trial court, appellant attacks the sufficiency of the indictment and the refusal of the court to grant his motion for a separate trial.

The offense proscribed by the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a), is the knowing transportation in interstate commerce of a person kidnaped and “held for ransom or reward or otherwise” and the severity of the punishment depends on whether such person is liberated unharmed. [1] The indictment charges the kidnaping and transportation of Gloria Jean Galvez and says that she was held “for the purpose of taking indecent liberties with her person and of making an assault upon her.” Counsel for appellant argues that the quoted phrase does not satisfy the statute because it is too vague to indicate that such liberties caused harm.

The use in the statute of the words “or otherwise” shows an intent of Congress to include within the offense any holding of a kidnaped person for a purpose desired by the captor and negatives the need for ransom or reward. [2] The generality of the phrase encompasses a holding for the purpose of taking indecent liberties. [3] The statute does not require that the kidnaping and holding cause harm to the person kidnaped. The matter of harm’relates only to punishment. [4] In our opinion the indictment is sufficient.

Appellant was not prejudiced by the denial of his motion for a separate trial. No statement of one defendant implicating a co-defendant was received in evidence. The grant of a severance is within the discretion of the trial court [5] and that discretion was not abused.

Affirmed.

1

. 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a) roads thus:

“Whoever knowingly transports in interstate or foreign commerce, any person who has been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnaped, abducted, or carried away and held for ransom or reward or otherwise, except, in the case of a minor, by a parent thereof, shall be punished (1) by death if the kidnaped person has not been liberated unharmed, and if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend, or (2) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if the death penalty is not imposed.”
2

. See Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 127, n. 1, 56 S.Ct. 395, 80 L.Ed. 522. The statute specifically excludes the taking of a minor by a parent.

3

. Compare Davidson v. Unite States, 8 Cir., 312 F.2d 163 (sexual molestation); United States v. Bazzell, 7 Cir., 187 F.2d 878, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 849, 72 S. Ct. 73, 96 L.Ed. 641 (prostitution); Sanford v. United States, 8 Cir., 169 F.2d 71 (robbery) ; and United States v. Dressier, 7 Cir., 112 F.2d 972 (escape). See also Eidson v. United States, 10 Cir., 272 F.2d 684.

4

. See Robinson v. United States, 6 Cir., 144 F.2d 392, affirmed 324 U.S. 282, 65 S.Ct. 666, 89 L.Ed. 944.

5

. DeVault v. United States, 10 Cir., 338 F.2d 179; Baker v. United States, 10 Cir., 329 F.2d 786, 787; Maupin v. United States, 10 Cir., 225 F.2d 680, 682.