United States v. Laszlo Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640 (2d Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Laszlo Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640 (2d Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2009 · …government title to the property is merely a 'jurisdictional fact at p. 641 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1992 · …knowledge on the part of the defendant that the property he has stolen was in fact government property at p. 641 ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1994 · …that the stolen or converted property in fact belonged to the government was to lay the basis for federal jurisdiction and that the defendant's knowledge of the jurisdictional fact is irrelevant. at p. 641 ✓
20 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Goldreich (ca2, 2018-02-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Goldreich
2d Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jeffery
4th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
The sole reason for including the requirement that the property belongs to the government is to *676 state the foundation for federal jurisdiction.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Baker, 693 F.2d 183, 186 (D.C.Cir.1982); United States v. Speir, 564 F.2d 934, 937-38 (10th Cir.1977) (en banc); United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.1976) (per curiam); United States v. Crutchley, 502 F.2d 1195, 1201 (3d Cir.1974); United States v. Denmon, 483 F.2d 1093, 1094-95 (8th Cir.1973); United States v. Smith, 489 F.2d 1330, 1334 (7th Cir.1973); United States v…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Timothy Conrad Rehak
8th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
See United States v. Speir, 564 F.2d 934, 938 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 927 (1978); United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 909 (1976); United States v. Crutchley, 502 F.2d 1195, 1201 (3d Cir. 1974); Denmon, 483 F.2d at 1095 ; United States v. Smith, 489 F.2d 1330, 1333-34 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 994 (1973); United States v. Boyd, 446 F.2d 1267, 1274 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Howey, 427 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir. 1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rehak
8th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
See United States v. Speir, 564 F.2d 934, 938 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 927 , 98 S.Ct. 1495 , 55 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 909 , 97 S.Ct. 1181 , 51 L.Ed.2d 585 (1977); United States v. Crutchley, 502 F.2d 1195, 1201 (3d Cir.1974); Denmon, 483 F.2d at 1095 ; United States v. Smith, 489 F.2d 1330, 1333-34 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 994 , 94 S.Ct. 2407 , 40 L.Ed.2d 773 (1974); United States v. Boyd, 446 F.2d 1267, 1274 (5th Cir.1971); United States v. Howey, 427 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir.1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Pannell
2d Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Federal jurisdiction is properly predicated on the fact that “the stolen property in fact belonged to the [federal] Government.” United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.1976) (per curiam) (discussing jurisdictional basis for prosecution of theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 ); United States v. LaPorta, 46 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir.1994) (explaining that in prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1361 “[government title to the property is merely a ‘jurisdictional fact’ ”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Pannell
2d Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Federal jurisdiction is properly predicated on the fact that “the stolen property in fact belonged to the [federal] Government.” United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.1976) (per curiam) (discussing jurisdictional basis for prosecution of theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 ); United States v. LaPorta, 46 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir.1994) (explaining that in prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1361 “[government title to the property is merely a ‘jurisdictional fact’ ”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ferby
2d Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
A defendant violates 18 U.S.C. § 641 if he “know[s that the converted property] belongs to someone other than himself,” United States v. LaPorta, 46 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir.1994), even if the defendant does not know that the converted property is owned by the United States, United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ferby
2d Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
A defendant violates 18 U.S.C. § 641 if he “know[s that the converted property] belongs to someone other than himself,” United States v. LaPorta, 46 F.3d 152 , 158 (2d Cir.1994), even if the defendant does not know that the converted property is owned by the United States, United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir. 1976) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Parker
W.D.N.Y. · 2001 · confidence medium
United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 909 , 97 S.Ct. 1181 , 51 L.Ed.2d 585 (1977) (citing cases); United States v. Sicurella, 834 F.Supp. 621, 626 (W.D.N.Y.1993), aff'd sub nom., United States v. LaPorta, 46 F.3d 152, 158-59 (2d Cir.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. LaPorta
unknown court · 1994 · confidence medium
Indeed, since Morissette , we have held that under § 641, proof “that the stolen [or converted] property in fact belonged to the government was to lay the basis for federal jurisdiction and that the defendant’s knowledge of the jurisdictional fact is irrelevant.” United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.1976) (per curiam) (citing Feola), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 909 , 97 S.Ct. 1181 , 51 L.Ed.2d 585 (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States of America, Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Michael Laporta and Vincent Sicurella, Also Known as \Jimmy
unknown court · 1994 · confidence medium
Indeed, since Morissette, we have held that under Sec. 641, proof "that the stolen [or converted] property in fact belonged to the government was to lay the basis for federal jurisdiction and that the defendant's knowledge of the jurisdictional fact is irrelevant." United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.1976) (per curiam) (citing Feola ), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 909 , 97 S.Ct. 1181 , 51 L.Ed.2d 585 (1977). 37 The Supreme Court has in recent years interpreted some "criminal statutes to include broadly applicable scienter requirements, even where the statute by its terms does not co…
cited Cited "see" United States v. Klingler
E.D. Mich. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See U.S. v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 909 , 97 S.Ct. 1181 , 51 L.Ed.2d 585 (1977).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Duane Markiewicz
2d Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.1976) (government need not demonstrate "knowledge on the part of the defendant that the property he has stolen was in fact Government property"), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 909 , 97 S.Ct. 1181 , 51 L.Ed.2d 585 (1977).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Markiewicz
2d Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.1976) (government need not demonstrate “knowledge on the part of the defendant that the property he has stolen was in fact Government property”), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 909 , 97 S.Ct. 1181 , 51 L.Ed.2d 585 (1977).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Richard Speir and Gary Puffer
10th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 430 U.S. 909 , 97 S.Ct. 1181 , 51 L.Ed.2d 585 ; United States v. Crutchley, 502 F.2d 1195, 1201 (3d Cir.); United States v. Smith, 489 F.2d 1330, 1333-34 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 994 , 94 S.Ct. 2407 , 40 L.Ed.2d 773 ; United States v. Denmon, 483 F.2d 1093, 1094-95 (8th Cir.); United States v. Boyd, 446 F.2d 1267, 1274 (5th Cir.); United States v. Howey, supra, 427 F.2d at 1018 . 4 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Eddie Hicks
7th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Crutchley, 502 F.2d 1195, 1201 (3d Cir. 1974); United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669 , 675–76 (4th Cir. No. 20-2970 5 2011); United States v. Boyd, 446 F.2d 1267, 1274 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Sivils, 960 F.2d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 1992); United States v. Denmon, 483 F.2d 1093 , 1094–95 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Howey, 427 F.2d 1017, 1018 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Speir, 564 F.2d 934, 938 (10th Cir. 1977) (en banc); United States v. Baker, 693 F.2d 183, 186 (D.C.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Frank Baker
D.C. Cir. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640, 641 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 909 , 97 S.Ct. 1181 , 51 L.Ed.2d 585 (1977); United States v. Crutchley, 502 F.2d 1195, 1201 (3d Cir.1974); United States v. Smith, 489 F.2d 1330, 1334 (7th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 994 , 94 S.Ct. 2407 , 40 L.Ed.2d 773 (1974).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Gavin
W.D. Mich. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640 (2nd Cir. 1976); United States v. Denmon, 483 F.2d 1093 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Howey, 427 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1970); Baker v. United States, 429 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir. 1970).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Carlos Herrera, Victor Hugo Herrera, and Felipe Santiago Herrera, A/k/a\chiquito\""
2d Cir. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Jermendy, 544 F.2d 640 (2nd Cir. 1976).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Laszlo JERMENDY, Defendant-Appellant
351, Docket 76-1231.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 4, 1976.
544 F.2d 640
1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6388
Elia Weinbach, Asst. U. S. Atty. (David G. Trager, U. S. Atty., E. D. N. Y., Bernard J. Fried, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee., Jonathan J. Silbermann, William J. Gallagher, Legal Aid Society, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Friendly, Hays, Mulligan, Per Curiam.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant Jermendy appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on May 14,1976, after a jury trial before Judge Henry Bramwell in the United States District[*641] Court for the Eastern District of New York. He was convicted of a theft of United States property valued in excess of one hundred dollars. 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2. The sole question raised on this appeal is whether it was plain error for the district court judge to instruct the jury that knowledge of the Government’s ownership of the property stolen was not an element of the larceny charged.

There is no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence so that no extended statement of the facts is necessary. In the early morning of June 10, 1975, the defendant, Laszlo Jermendy, who was armed with a .38 caliber revolver, and an accomplice * entered the apartment of Roland Lindsay, Special Agent in the United States Secret Service, in Queens County, New York. After threatening Lindsay and his roommate, the intruders ransacked the apartment and among the items stolen was a .357 magnum Smith and Wesson service revolver, property of the United States, then in the possession of Lindsay. After the service revolver was discovered hidden in a mattress in Jermendy’s apartment by the police, he was arrested. On October 24, Jermendy was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District.

At the trial, Judge Bramwell instructed the jury:

You are charged as a matter of law that the government is not required to prove that the defendant charged with theft of property of the United States, was aware that the property taken belonged to the United States.

Although no objection was made to the charge, appellant now urges that his conviction be reversed on the theory that this charge constituted plain error. The issue has not been previously put to this court but five of the six circuits that have considered the question have determined that knowledge by the defendant of Government ownership of the property taken is not necessary to support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 641. United States v. Crutchley, 502 F.2d 1195, 1201 (3d Cir. 1974); United States v. Smith, 489 F.2d 1330, 1332-34 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 994, 94 S.Ct. 2407, 40 L.Ed.2d 773 (1974); United States v. Denmon, 483 F.2d 1093, 1094-95 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Boyd, 446 F.2d 1267, 1274 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Howey, 427 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1970). The opposing view upon which appellant relies was adopted by the Tenth Circuit in Findley v. United States, 362 F.2d 921, 922-23 (1966).

Each of the circuit court cases representing the majority view has expressly rejected Findley and we concur in that repudiation. There is nothing either in the language of the statute at issue or in its legislative history which would indicate any intention on the part of Congress to require proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant that the property he has stolen was in fact Government property. The Ninth Circuit in United States v. Howey, supra, in an opinion written by Judge Hufstedler persuasively establishes that Findley was erroneously decided.

We conclude the statutory requirement that the stolen property in fact belonged to the Government was to lay the basis for federal jurisdiction and that the defendant’s knowledge of the jurisdictional fact is irrelevant. See United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975).

Judgment affirmed.

*

The accomplice, Kenneth Helmstadt, who was indicted as a “John Doe” on the same indictment as Jermendy, pleaded guilty to the charges.