United States v. Hale
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15429
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Thomas Hale filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Oct 2005, listing a Salt Lake City property (SLC Property) at $190,000 on Schedule A; a 2005 tax assessment later showed a higher value and Hale was challenging that assessment when he filed.
- Hale converted his case to Chapter 7 in July 2006; Trustee Elizabeth Loveridge became the Chapter 7 trustee and questioned Hale at an August 22, 2006, meeting of creditors under oath.
- On the day of the meeting Hale placed a newspaper ad offering the SLC Property for roughly $396,075; he later signed a purchase contract (Sept 1, 2006) to sell the property for $395,000 without disclosing the bankruptcy to the buyer.
- The trustee learned of the sale and, after intervening, caused the property to be resold by the trustee on terms less favorable to Hale; the bankruptcy court approved the trustee’s sale in October 2006.
- In November 2006 Hale sent the trustee an orange envelope containing an unidentified substance and a note reading “Possible Haz-mat? Termites or Hanta virus from mice?” leading to a federal investigation.
- A jury convicted Hale of: (1) making a materially false statement under oath in a bankruptcy case (18 U.S.C. § 152(2)); (2) concealing a purchase contract from the trustee and creditors (18 U.S.C. § 152(1)); and (3) perpetrating a hoax regarding transmission of a biological agent (18 U.S.C. § 1038); he was sentenced to 27 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of § 152(2) conviction for false oath (temporal ambiguity) | Hale: the trustee's questions were fundamentally ambiguous as to whether they asked about the schedules' accuracy when filed (Oct 2005) or at the time of the Aug 22, 2006 meeting, so conviction cannot stand. | Govt: questions reasonably referred to Hale's knowledge when he listed assets and post-filing knowledge; inconsistently argued both temporal readings at trial. | Reversed § 152(2) conviction; question was fundamentally ambiguous, error was plain and affected substantial rights and the proceedings' integrity; remand for judgment of acquittal on that count. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for concealment of purchase contract (§ 152(1)) | Hale: the purchase contract was void or not "property of the estate," so concealment statute inapplicable. | Govt: contract was voidable, created an interest in proceeds under state law; trustee could ratify or avoid—thus contract/its proceeds were estate property under § 541(a)(6)/(7). | Affirmed concealment conviction; contract created an interest in proceeds and thus constituted property of the estate. |
| Constitutionality/applicability of predicate § 175 for hoax conviction (§ 1038) | Hale: § 175 may be unconstitutional or overbroad after Bond v. United States; his mailing was not the type of ‘‘combat/terrorism’’ conduct the statute targets. | Govt: Bond did not address § 175; Hale's conduct (mailing a substance claiming to be hantavirus) is akin to terrorism and fits § 175’s core concerns. | Affirmed hoax conviction; Bond does not render § 175 plainly invalid here and the evidence supported that Hale conveyed misleading information about a deadly biological agent. |
| Need for instruction on statutory definition of "biological agent" | Hale: jury should have been instructed that the actual substance might be a covered biological agent, which would negate the hoax element. | Govt: indictment alleged a false claim to have sent hantavirus (a hoax), not that the mailed material itself met the statutory definition; instruction would not have changed verdict. | Rejected plain-error challenge; any error was not plain and an instruction on "biological agent" would not have altered the hoax determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., 549 U.S. 365 (bankruptcy conversion and trustee control principles)
- Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (necessity of clear questioning to sustain perjury-related convictions)
- Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2077 (statutory interpretation caution in criminalizing conduct that intrudes on traditional state interests)
- Farmer v. (unpublished name in excerpt), 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) (fundamental ambiguity doctrine in perjury/fraud contexts)
- Strohm v. United States, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) (clarity required for perjury/prosecutorial questioning)
- Cordery v. United States, 656 F.3d 1103 (plain-error review and what constitutes "plain")
- Hill v. United States, 749 F.3d 1250 (consideration of error nature in plain-error analysis)
- Grassie v. United States, 237 F.3d 1199 (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
- Parks v. Dittmar (In re Dittmar), 618 F.3d 1199 (property interests for bankruptcy estate analysis)