United States v. George Irving Norman, Jr., 391 F.2d 212 (6th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. George Irving Norman, Jr., 391 F.2d 212 (6th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Nisar N. Mulla (ca6, 1993-10-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Nisar N. Mulla
6th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
A writ of coram nobis "is an extraordinary writ and jurisdiction of the court to grant relief is of limited scope." United States v. Norman, 391 F.2d 212, 213 (6th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Cariola, 323 F.2d 180 (3d Cir.1963)), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1014 (1968).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Harold Friedman and Anthony Hughes
6th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
United States v. Norman, 391 F.2d 212, 213 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1014 (1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James Schumacher v. United States
6th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
See Flippins v. United States, 747 F.2d 1089 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 2197 (1984); United States v. Norman, 391 F.2d 212, 213 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1014 (1968). 5 Accordingly, we hereby affirm the district court's judgment.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Donnell Flippins v. United States
6th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
United States v. Dellinger, 657 F.2d 140, 144 (7th Cir.1981); United States v. Norman, 391 F.2d 212, 213 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1014 , 88 S.Ct. 1265 , 20 L.Ed.2d 163 (1968).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Motta
Haw. · 1983 · confidence medium
U.S. v. Coleman, 656 F.2d 509, 510-11 (9th Cir. 1981); U.S. v. Previte, 648 F.2d 73, 80 (1st Cir. 1981); U.S. v. Hart, 640 F.2d 856, 857-58 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 992 , 101 S.Ct. 2334 , 68 L.Ed.2d 853 (1981); U.S. v. Pheaster, 544 F.2d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1099 , 97 S.Ct. 1118 , 51 L.Ed.2d 546 (1977); Kaneshiro v. U.S., 445 F.2d 1266, 1269 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 992 , 92 S.Ct. 537 , 30 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971); U.S. v. Norman, 391 F.2d 212, 213 (6th Cir. 1968); U.S. v. Thompson, 356 F.2d 216, 226 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 964 , 86 S.C…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Donald G. Richardson
7th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
See Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 433 , 52 S.Ct. 417, 419 , 76 L.Ed. 861 (1932); United States v. Willis, 515 F.2d 798, 799 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Norman, 391 F.2d 212, 213 (6th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1014 , 88 S.Ct. 1265 , 20 L.Ed.2d 163 (1968); Gould v. United States, 173 F.2d 30, 31 (10th Cir. 1946); Lucas v. United States, 158 F.2d 865, 867 (4th Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 330 U.S. 841 , 67 S.Ct. 977 , 91 L.Ed. 1287 (1947), reh’g denied, 331 U.S. 863 , 67 S.Ct. 1186 , 91 L.Ed. 1869 (1947).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Burton Wesley Stuard and Donald W. Summar
6th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Neal and the decisions of other circuits cited above are in accord with the opinion of this court in United States v. Norman, 391 F.2d 212, 213 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1014 , 88 S.Ct. 1265 , 20 L.Ed.2d 163 (1968), in which we enumerated three elements to be proved under the statute.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Tyler
M.D. Fla. · 1976 · confidence medium
United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 , 74 S.Ct. 247 , 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954); Correa-Negron v. United States, 473 F.2d 684, 685 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. den. 414 U.S. 870 , 94 S.Ct. 89 , 38 L.Ed.2d 88 (1973); United States v. Travers, 514 F.2d 1171 (2d Cir. 1974); Rewak v. United States, 512 F.2d 1184, 1186 (9th Cir. 1975); Ybarra v. United States, 461 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1972); Lee v. United States, 501 F.2d 494, 500 (8th Cir. 1974); Bruno v. United States, 474 F.2d 1261, 1263 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Norman, 391 F.2d 212, 213 (6th Cir. 1968), cert. den. 390 U.S. 1014 , 88 S.Ct. 12…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Delois Willis
7th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
United States v. Norman, 391 F.2d 212, 213 (6th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1014 , 88 S.Ct. 1265 , 20 L.Ed.2d 163 ; 4 see also Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 433 , 52 S.Ct. 417 , 76 L.Ed. 861 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Brian Horton
6th Cir. · 2014 · signal: accord · confidence high
Davis , however, makes clear that liberal construction in favor of sufficiency only applies "where a defendant does not challenge an indictment until appeal.” Davis, 306 F.3d at 411 ; accord United States v. Norman, 391 F.2d 212, 214 (6th Cir.1968). 2 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Edwards
N.D. Ohio · 1999 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Norman, 391 F.2d 212 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1014 , 88 S.Ct. 1265 , 20 L.Ed.2d 163 (1968).
cited Cited "see, e.g." In Re Harry Davis, D/B/A Davis Manufacturing Company v. United States
5th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. Norman, (6th Cir. 1968) 391 F.2d 212 , cert. den. 390 U.S. 1014 , 88 S.Ct. 1265 , 20 L.Ed.2d 163 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Jendrusch
Haw. · 1977 · signal: see also · confidence low
In light of these subsequent amendments, the present charge could not possibly support the defendant’s conviction. 4 Reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint. 1 Kaneshiro v. United States, 445 F.2d 1266 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. den. 404 U.S. 992; See also United States v. Norman, 391 F.2d 212 (6th Cir. 1968), cert. denied 390 U.S. 1014 . 2 HRS § 702-206 contains definitions of the states of mind which the Hawaii Penal Code recognizes as sufficient to establish penal liability.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Reyes Correa-Negron, AKA Ray Correa-Negron, Ray Correa, Sr. v. United States
5th Cir. · 1973 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., United States v. Norman, 6 Cir. 1968, 391 F.2d 212 , cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1014 , 88 S.Ct. 1265 , 20 L.Ed.2d 163 .
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
George Irving NORMAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
17641_1.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Apr 8, 1968.
391 F.2d 212
Francis R. Salazar, Denver, Colo., for appellant; Raymond A. White, Dayton, Ohio, on brief., Roger J. Makley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dayton, Ohio, for appellee; Robert M. Draper, U. S. Atty., Dayton, Ohio, on brief.
Phillips, Edwards, Combs.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published
COMBS, Circuit Judge.

The appellant entered a plea of guilty in 1952 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio[*213] to an indictment charging violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4, [1] misprision of felony. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and one day, and has served his sentence. In October, 1966, he filed in the same court “Motion in the Nature of an Application for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis,” seeking vacation and dismissal of the 1952 judgment of conviction. His application was denied and he appeals.

Before discussing the merits of appellant’s application we look briefly to the nature of the remedy which he is pursuing.

While the writ of error coram nobis has been expressly abolished in civil proceedings (Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) it has survived in criminal practice by virtue of the fact that it has not been replaced by a statutory provision. Mathis v. United States, 246 F.Supp. 116 (D.C.N.C.1965). It is an extraordinary writ and jurisdiction of the court to grant relief is of limited scope. United States v. Cariola, 323 F.2d 180 (3rd Cir.1963). The writ is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of a court to set aside its judgment of conviction even when sentence has been fully served. United States v. Forlano, 249 F.Supp. 174 (D.C.N.Y.1965), affirmed 355 F.2d 934 (2nd Cir.1966).

The pertinent part of the indictment to which appellant pleaded guilty reads:

“That GEORGE IRVING NORMAN, JR., the defendant herein, at Dayton, Ohio, within the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a Court of the United States, to-wit: Section 2312, Title 18, U.S.C. Interstate transportation of a stolen 1948 Oldsmobile, Motor No. 9-7001H, from Chicago, Illinois, to Dayton, Ohio, on February 16, 1952, the said William Moore well knowing the ear to have been stolen; he, the said GEORGE IRVING NORMAN, JR., did on the 18th day of February, 1952, unlawfully conceal and fail to disclose or make known such felony as soon as might be to some one of the Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, and in furtherance of said unlawful concealment, the said GEORGE IRVING NORMAN, JR. took the following affirmative step to conceal the crime . committed by the said William Moore in that he purchased Ohio registration tags No. 2571RZ using a duplicate Ohio Certificate of Title for another car, and placed these tags on the above stolen Oldsmobile.”

Appellant contends that the indictment was fatally defective in that it failed to charge that defendant had “knowledge” that the motor vehicle involved had been stolen; also that there is no allegation in the indictment that the defendant had the “intent” to commit a crime.

The elements of the offense as fixed by the statute are three-fold: (1) Knowledge of commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, (2) failure to make known to the proper authorities the commission of the crime, and (3) concealment.

An indictment will be construed liberally in favor of its sufficiency where objection to it is first made after verdict or judgment. Hagner v. United States,[*214] 285 U.S. 427, 52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 861 (1932); United States v. Thompson, 356 F.2d 216 (2nd Cir.1965); United States v. Laverick, 348 F.2d 708 (3rd Cir.1965); Clay v. United States, 326 F.2d 196 (10th Cir.1963); Finn v. United States, 256 F.2d 304 (4th Cir.1958).

This indictment charges that the defendant had knowledge of the commission of a felony, to-wit: interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle; it specifies the title and section of the United States Code that was violated; specifies the year, make, and motor number of the vehicle involved; gives names of the cities between which the vehicle was transported; identifies the driver of the vehicle; and charges that the defendant took certain affirmative acts to conceal the crime.

Keeping in mind the applicable rule for the testing of an indictment after verdict or judgment, we are of the opinion the indictment properly charged appellant with the offense of which he was convicted. United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 376, 74 S.Ct. 113, 98 L.Ed. 92 (1953).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

1

. 18 U.S.C. § 4. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(The original misprision statute was part of the Crimes Act of 1790, First Congress, Second Session, and related to concealment of a felony upon the high seas or in other places within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. By the Act of March 4, 1909, the Sixtieth Congress, in codifying the Federal Criminal Code, amended the statute to include any felony cognizable by a court of the United States.)