Patricia Yvonne Smyly v. United States

certainly disagree we do not with the

рrinciples so well stated the District law, Court. “While no or us- custom

age law, equivalent which is the

compel segregation of races in the public transportation, equally

area of it is good people clear that of both will races are free to observe traditions which genei'ations

for part have been an intimate way of their life.” Similar

related factors forth set reasons in support of our action led us to the modi- City

fication of the decree in of Mont-

gomery, Gilmore, Alabama v. 368-370.

Reversed and remanded. SMYLY, Appellant, Yvonne

Patricia America, STATES of

UNITED Appellee.

No. 18479. Appeals Court of States Fifth Circuit. 24, 1961.

Feb. Locke, Jr., Tex.,, Antonio, John R. San appellant. Wine, ‍‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‍Atty., Russell B. U. S. Arthur- Luethcke, Dial, Jr.,

L. Preston H. Asst.. Atty., Antonio, Tex., U. appel- S. San lee. TUTTLE, Judge, Before Chief Judges. BROWN,

JONES and Circuit TUTTLE, Judge. Chief appeal attacks a conviction based! partially reception of' in; extra-judicial by Dyer prosecution.1 Act transports is described as “Whoever This offense follows: interstate or foreign commerce motor vehicle or Transportation of stolen ve- “§ been; knowing aircraft, the same to' have hicles. appellant that denied con- appellant’s the burden just the ar- car before was stolen until admissions proof of here tention appre- rest. following by arrest her made Hoover, Larry appellant and here hension The admissions which are by repudiated car, but testi- the driver form of attack were offered in the illegally trial, admitted mony by was on her her three officers. illegally con- by or was court the trial Patrolman, Highway Arlie Texas permitting the by in the court sidered relating James, facts testified after because, jury, to the be submitted says, (cid:127)case to about the arrest follows: cor- a failure of was she there so having Smyly, “I asked Mrs. after under the roboration her, identified I asked her if she was n standards by in set with Mr. Hoover when the car was 147, 75 348 U.S. Smith v. United taken or stolen. She stated to me and S.Ct. that she I was. asked her she where prior and Mr. Hoover had been to 99 L.Ed. 101. taking the car. She stated me to admis- Entirely had apartment she been at her Mobile, believed sions, They which could Alabama. had left vicinity apartment together, in the walking, showed Texas, upon City, eve- parked vehicle, in the late came of Johnson 1960, appellant, parked ning April 24, mar- street in a residential years age, pas- key ignition woman, 24 area with ried senger was They got that was halted vehicle, in an automobile switch. following speed by police a chase at a apartment drove it back to pick up her po- personal 100 miles an hour and after the effects, her aft- and warning bullet; lice had fired a possibly, hours, one er some property automobile was of a resi- left town. At that time I her asked Mobile, Alabama, dent of they pro- go, where had intended nights they apprehended. had been stolen vided hadn’t been either one or two Larry Hoover, 17-year they earlier old, one She stated to me that on were driving way their who was car at the time Mexico. asked her arrest; particular if she had reason for chase and going Mobile, Mexico, shrugged and she from accompanied Hoover had her shoulders.” trip expenses of the had shared him, including elec- her of an the sale Investigation Agent, Bureau Federal money obtain which route to iron en tric Webb, Jr., C. testified as follows: James car; gasoline they spent for the Smyly Mexico; about the Mrs. couple headed for “I talked were the appellant Ford, married, alleged separated of a theft but Alabama, Mobile, working and was at a her husband from occurred County, Gillespie Mobile; that she had left recovered or cafe bar Smyly Alabama;. informed that Mrs. behind Hoover Texas. two children 22, 1960, April already plea she convicted about on his Night Dyer guilty Club in Mo- Paradise under the Act and he tes- Larry appellant’s bile, met there Hoover. trial tified at he alone night they club at left the automobile and that said stole he told her She approximately 1:00 a.' m. he had borrowed it a friend and morning nothing April 1960, and re- that she knew about the theft apartment. She said to her until the chase occurred. On turned the trial 25, 1948, years, $5,- stolen, both. June c. shall be fined not more than imprisoned 18 U.S.C.A. 806.” 000 or 62 Stat. more than five bar, was; re- I there, they apartment a member; don’t whatever it were at her they they minutes, left about which time they apartment. up went left, both street down the went They stayed they apart- at her there in Mobile. She said they while, mеnt for then for a walked around on the streets walking street, and started They upon short time. the came they light colored, upon Ford, came Ford with this ’55 four-door which keys it, they parked back to her was drove on two a street between apartment, packed clothes, and key residences. was her She said the they ignition left Mobile.” car, of this so both got of them into the and re- ob Appellant’s offered counsel apartment. They turned to her testimony any jection kind approximately were there minutes, during 10 or 15 only objection Webb and Dittmar. The time she ground testimony on to James’s was packed some of her clothes. alleged by appellant that the statement “They approx- then left Mobile at ground voluntary. was not imately 2:15, m., a. 2:30 same morn- developed, and that now be is not issue ing. They drove from Mobile to to ob fore us. This failure of counsel Orleans, Louisiana, they New where ject to the introduction of evidence now gas. they ran out of She said then to be claimed inadmissible normal would iron, sold an electric which she had ly prevent party complaining from brought her, and with this appeal. F.R.Cr.P., thereabout on Rule 51 they money, purchased gas some U.S.C.A., Butler v. their car. appellant F.2d 876. The did, however, here move for a they “She said left New Or- case, at the conclusion traveling leans and continued west assigning ground as a fol therefor the Highway She said she lowing : going through Houston, recalled Texas, “2. The evidence is insufficient to going through recalled Aus- prove that Defendant knew the au- tin, Texas, coming to Johnson stolen tomobile was at the time it City, they Texas. She said arrived transported in interstate com- was merce, approximately there at P.M. on 6:30 since the Govеrnment’s night April 24, 1960, where solely thereof is based on asserted they ate dinner at a local cafe. She extrajudicial statements of De- they said ap- were at this cafe for fendant, opposed to the contradic- proximately so, two hours or after tory testimony open direct court they left, time and while still who have witnesses City, they in Johnson obtained some personal knowledge of facts.” these gas a school bus. She said reading plain getting It of this mo- after gas, they contin- tion, complaint still made no counsel ued toward Fredericksburg, by court, trial the consideration passing subsequently were stopped by a Tex- acquit Highway on the motion to patrolman.” introduced, been had City Deputy Marshal, Wilfred Ditt- including testimony concerning mar, present testified that he was at the admissions accused. The motion response interview and in Jamеs question, to the solely posited proposition “ * * * you do recall what overcome, the admissions as a defendant alleged said about law, controverting matter timony tes- automobile?”, theft the accused and her convicted replied: Thus, ‘companion. upon neither the in- “Well, boy she stated that troduction of the evidence nor at night club, Hoover had met her at a before the time submission of the case brought point its attention are not jury raise did counsel ruling.” reversal; request Smith motion or that is here relied on States, Cir., of United extra-judicial certiorari denied 360 U.S. the accused inadmissible either were Any rule L.Ed.2d 1261. probative were they because without value trifling they put premium would were corroboration sys- the trial court and entire ve- upon touched tem. hicle was stolen. Federal state the law verdict until after guilty requiremеnt, when Courts as passed to the exact and after the court had adequately presented, gave sentence that trial counsel first quantity nature and tes- opportunity corroborative

court an point the consider to timony necessary justify to consideration “mo- that is In now raised here. extra-judicial tion admissions conceded- for is and in alternative the ly although confusion, some days is not trial”, new filed five after the within this circuit. French passage conclusion of See the trial and States, Cir., sentence, ground: appellant following F.2d asserted the certiorari denied 352 U.S. 77 S.Ct. 73, 1 L.Ed.2d 62. The existence of such Knowledge “3. that the automo- may confusion present elsewhere bile was stolen is delicti the strong temptation to wade into field of the offense with which Defendant attempt to clear is else- was convicted and since the Govern- imprecise. where uncertain or We do ment has relied for thereof not temptation, succumb to this al- solely on the uncorroborated extra- though invited to do so briefs both judicial admissions of the Defend- and the Government. ant, the evidence is insufficient to nothing presents sustain the conviction.” record think this We point principal on the consideration party not The that a rule sought also We conclude raised. to be trial, through permit go the form of a assuming admissibility rel- that, objection, to be adduced without evidence repeated Smyly’s thrice of Mrs. evance ato let and then the case submitted gen- nothing admissions, is ‍‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‍to calling to on the trial court grounds not does that the evidence eral touching questions pass upon ad on the guilty. judg- The support verdict of missibility possible to limitations as ment evidence, of some of the the use Affirmed. question le adverse verdict after an gality prеsented such matters not Judge BROWN, (dis- Circuit JOHN R. ruling not for a trial court based senting) . implications clearest argued language Rule case was briefed and but it accords As this very presented it substantial the administration us with common sense it, repeatedly puts concerning justice. question, as the Court We held that quantity of nature and corrobora Appellate are courts for re courts “the necessary justify testimony law committed con errors of view of tive extra-judicial courts, “Normally trial admissions court is trial sideration not put in error for acts or omissions ^[*] & *” way. concededly confusion, although it this some states

2. The Court within not the case this circuit. of the law in the such is “The state Federal requirement, French as the exact See Courts adequately presented, denied certiorari when quantity 1 L.Ed.2d 62. The existence nature and of corrobora- may present necessary testimony justify elsewhere such confusion con- tive sideration, strong temptation extra-judicial wade into the think it statement warrants an extended Now all of that is washed disagreement. my point” holding not reasons for Court’s that'“the “record “adequately presented” and the I. presents nothing on the for consideration outset, At question of admissi- principal point sought raised.” bility of evidence ever asserted. doing my judg- Court, so, In conceding The attack that, ment, of trial both on matters errs testimony from admissi- the officers was appellate procedure substan- well as as ble, such, it, re- and the nevertheless concerning principles tive corroboration maining evidence, was insufficient bears as that a matter of law to sustain conviction.3 sufficiencyof con- to sustain problem important, of cor- More viction. robоration delicti is procedure first confuses As to admissibility. question one of evidence, admissibility States, 1954, although that involved at all. 99 L.Ed. regards Next, specification of rea- Smith v. United in the motion for ac- sons quittal make so inadequate raise con- this specifica- sufficiency clear is the corroboration when, law, tention no upon to sustain a conviction based extra- required. tion of reasons whatsoever is judicial approach admission. That is the Court, permits That somewhat ob- Wigmore, of the text as well. 7 writers liquely, recognize then to the substantive (3rd Evidence 2070-2074 at 393-406 §§ say that whereas 1940); McCormick, Ed. Evidence § Appeals may confused, Courts of we (1954). jurisdictions may In some there are, thankfully, fortunate. For more question timing— be an incidental us, all has been declared as the law g., e. whether the corrobora- of the Medes and Persians which аltereth tive precede evidence must the offer of not once we handed down French v. Unit- extrajudicial admission. But ed 5 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d importance could be since in the though case, even pointed that Ias Federal Courts this is left to the trial special out in a concurrence, ignored al- judge’s Wigmore, discretion. 7 Evidence together decisive, controlling and con- (3rd 1940). at 404 Ed. temporary recent decision of the Su- preme Court. Consequently, the Court’s refusal to> arguments Appellant’s presents consider here now As matters of ground objection recurring that no was importance, made substantial 3. The * * * field dence edge and dependent quittal sion dence stolen was though ror do not succumb to this elsewhere overruling must complain appellant’s * ‘corpus delicti’ of the offense ^[1] made at invited to do so * * which was not automobile was attempt uncertain she knew the automobile was of her page her proved by Appellant’s Motion for that ^[2] the close four extrajudicial to clear because the extrajudicial reason that knowl- “The Court specifications the Government.” some evidence in- imprecise. sufficiently cor- temptation, of all stolen briefs both confession the evi- confes- of er- erred * * part evi- Ac- We al- ment’s brief vehicle Appellant’s question conviction that * * * rectly as a matter confession.” only proof certainly complied the commission of extrajudicial dence to roborated ‍‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‍(b), Joining because 28 U.S.C.A. because Appellant contradicted was prove that of whether or not where issue on by independent can be that first confession and this stolen phrases there was knew the car was stolen thе defendant law to evidence is insufficient with our Rule sustained she is her these, only proof * the issue: points offense, aided prove insufficient * evidence extrajudicial where Dyer raise knew the was her * * * Govern- ^[*] * * was di- abetted! “* These 24(2) n * * Act evi- * sufficiency of corroborative extra- nature and in evidence the admission completely evidence.4 irrele- judicial re- important, vant. More Rule 29 does II. quire any All reasons. statement of required motion state is that the hold proceeds to next The Court the “evidence sustain is insufficient to must issue critical determination conviction offense or offenses.” judg- motion for because the be avoided sharp con is in respects sufficiently Rule In two acquittal was ment of “ * * counterpart in the sometime to its trast specific raise the * * Rules, 28 U.S.C.A. F.R.Civ.P. Civil reversal here relied Rives, Judge pointed first, extra-judiсial admis- that the concurring in Jackson decision our inadmis- were either sions of the accused Cir., 1958, probative value where without sible or Trial holds they corroboration were without because Judge of the Government’s the close they upon touched judg a motion for not take page was 287 F.2d at stolen.” “along case,” acquittal ment of defi- the asserted 763. This is based on puts a provision Rule 29 motion, paragraph 2 of ciencies quoted Judge any motion burden on the not, page above “court whatsoever. It declares quoted para- declares, until a defendant or own on motion of its belatedly graph (page 763) filed entry judgment motion shall order the adequately present- matter may, Judge *.” If ed. must, acquittal, enter things wrong with Judge are several There must assume that a has a sufficient light First, aim understanding read in the this. of the law and a discern Pro- of Criminal proved of Federal Rules the ment of has been not or tech- proved to end artificial cedure which were nicalities, to enable him to make the deci specification amply pointed being required by the sion the law without Judge, an whereby. alert out the so wherein told or On the certainly Judge is, hand, Rice would by most party in a civil a case motion question required.6 Next, see the was the substan- 50(a) F.R.Civ.P. ex extrajudicial sufficiency pressly provides ad- tive that “A motion a di specific mission in context of the record. rected verdict shall state the grounds Second, categorically the motion pro chal- therefor.” There is like lenged may all evidence most di- vision F.R.Crim.P. 29 nor it be necessarily imported, through rect terms and this embraced as the Court does re extrajudicial well liance on F.R.Crim.P. 51.7 as the Paragraph judg- 4. 1 of of suсh the motion tion offense or offenses. If a acquittal judgment ment of stated: defendant’s motion for of ac- quittal close of the of- evidence “1. The evidence is insufficient by government granted, fered is not prove transported that Defendant defendant offer evidence with- automobile the state of Alabama to ” * * * having right. reserved the Texas, of the state or that she aided or transport abetted the thereof.” much is this so that 6. So on occasion the filing of initial motion under F.R.Civ. 29(a). Judg- 5. F.R.Crim.P. ‘‘Motion for 50(a) and notice P. and motion un Acquittal. ment Motions direct- of 50(b) F.R.Civ.P. der assumes consti ed are verdict abolished motions for proportions tutional the Seventh judgment acquittal shall be used Amendment. See the cases collected in place. their The court on motion of a Indemnity Co. of Yorkshire New York or of defendant its own motion or- shall Co., & v. Rоosth Genecov Production entry acquittal der the Cir., F.2d 252 5 657 note 11. charged more of one or offenses “Exceptions rulings or indictment information after 7. F.R.Crim.P. the evi- unnecessary court are dence on either is closed if orders side the evi- purposes excep- for which an dence is insufficient to sustain and for a convic- when, rejecting cate- that, in all broad crimes “the Court than More prove claim

gorically specification that to delicti the that no held evidence said aliunde must es- required We the confession reasons whatsoever. every tablish of- essential element in Huff v. United charged including fense connection F.2d 60: is, the accused his with the judg- defendant moved for “The identity criminal,” as the we declared: of all close ment at the agree. theOn not at all “We do ground the evidence contrary, of most we view sharе the insufficient to sustain phrase American courts Rules conviction. Rule Federal ‘corpus but two ele delicti’ includes re- Procedure, not of Criminal does injury first, fact ments: grounds quire motion loss; secondly, the fact specifically to be See more stated. somebody’s criminality the cause Cir., 1949, Jones, v. United States ” injury Furthermore, or loss. Opper v. United ground Consequently, asserted neither ab- basis for affords Court A.L.R.2d it clear makes avoidance of decision stention corroborative evidence need not be important delicti issue. sufficient, independent of the confes accused, sions III. to establish these two elements which constitute decide, duty Although we have ” ** delicti. means Court understand not do pages 736, F.2d at 738.8 to our decision its reference do so States, Cir., Perhaps two, three, as a element in French supra). (see are note Cirсuit we free.from confusion. But happily I finds do think are free from we confusion lacking error. despite positive to For relates in the Fifth Circuit declaration presented. French and the precise here Does caustic comments Wigmore that it this crime include is “too absurd to be ar 9 gued identity with” of the de- the fact remains third element Supreme expressly Court has ? fendant held that apparently intangible element three now The Court thinks this included as to crimes. Smith States, for all v. 1954, answered time in cases United was day necessary as on tlie same has heretofore been it tion party, States, handed down that a United sufficient the time the v. * * * ruling it decided order of the court Smith v. or made or United States, 147, 194, 198, sought, 348 U.S. makes known to the court categorically L.Ed. 99 cepting 192. he Smith desires the court to take action ac objection teaching (Forte to his thе action of Forte or grounds therefor; App.D.C. States, 111, 68 and the if 94 court but F. opportunity object 1120), party cites, 2d 127 A.L.R. has no which it to to plainly concerning order, objec- produc ruling states or absence of an crimes tangible ing prejudice injury, no ‘As not thereafter him.” to this [in tion does tangible] crime, every it annotation be shown I have checked under cannot ed.) (1951 crime has 51 in 18 the identifying been committed U.S.C.A. F.R.Crim.P. * ** pocket part through 1961 accused. cumulative We apply rule, single supplement. to choose with Not case deals with its broader acquittal. guarantee, to in which crimes motions tangible delicti, where annotated cases are con- hundreds implicate rulings admissibility corrobative evidence must with cerned evidence, in order to that a instructions accused show exclusion crime * * * [Citing counsel, jury, been committed. misconduct of and the has ” cases.]’ like. my discussing this, special two, After elements one and stated in concur 9. To 8. Wigmore rence, states: 232 F.2d 741: indeed, “(3) open view, A third too think absurd “I do it to us to argued with, occasionally join be been with the ‘most’ American' courts her, 192. 194, L.Ed. distinct. As to the Government 147, 75 prove substantially en intangible fact crime more than that an than More (a) car, (b) vehi drove transportation of stolen Hoover stole the compasses Texas, (c) in Forte it held knowl Appeals interstate to the Court of cles as 111, edge (d) it App.D.C. a com stolen and that States, United v. panion Specifi case This she furnished finances. 236, 127 A.L.R. cally, implicated she af had to an in in Smith. approved expressly way. firmative “In order to and abet aid ? case this into fit does How another to commit is neces crime it IV. sary that a ‘in defendant as some sort out- that, clear bе made venture, sociate should himself What estimate, my what, something participate he in it as set—and acknowledges, bring about, never opinion he wishes to that he seek Court’s particular clear—is his makes less action to make it L. much succeed.’ actually Hand, woman (CCA J. United States Peoni crime Information sure, N.Y.) charged. Nye 2d To be 100 F.2d 402.” & “ *** transported alleged Nissen v. she United from 613, 619, [described] vehicle motor 93 L.Ed. a stolen *** Texas 919, have, Alabama We first in Russell v. ** *** mo- knew United Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d was, 199, repeated stolen.” had been tor McClanahan v. aiding course, permissible States, Cir., 1956, Govern- abetting But the statute.10 certiorari denied 352 77 S. prove undertake put way. did not Ct. L.Ed.2d ment’s it this she even “There community car stole the must exist a she of unlaw physically ful intent transported accessory the sense between the and the ‘ * * * controlling perpetrator driving its move- car or but accessory undertook the Government What liable for ments. criminal act proved, ordinary was which in prove, most things, and the course of willing accompany- passenger probable was the natural as a consequence that ing Hoover, the “trans- she facilitated crime that he advised or com manded, although by spending of her mon- portation” some consequence may lodging food, expenses ey ac- intended him 1 trip. complish the many ways while On the Government’s meant case which lim- That might furnishing money elements of her ited actions to crime and' Hoover’s something quite accompanying Hoover, crime, crime her would con- by counsel, against advanced, namely, would be an offense at least the United ‘corpus States, principal punishable includes the third also a delicti’ is and that identity also, e., accused’s as such.” i. element By view, agency this as the criminal. or Phelps States, 11. See also synon- ‘corpus would be delicti’ term 52, citing Ri charge, ymous the whole of singer Cir., 1956, require that rule would 99: “In order for one to be in all three elements evidenced whole be independently accomplice an be must be concerned in confession, of the which specific commission crime with (Emphasis absurd.” would original.) charged, which the defendant is he must Wigmore, § Evidence guilt crime, an be partipant associate that a 1940). (3rd ed. at * * in that offense presence 2(a). “Whoever Mere com- time the 18 U.S.C.A. presence against or continued an offense the United was stolen as a mits counsels, abets, passenger crime, aids, would not a or com- constitute principal procures mands, induces, or or its either as a an commis- aider and1 principal. sion, clear abettor. is a United is Williams, 1951, 58, 64, “(b) an act causes States Whoever 595, 599, “Aiding done, directly performed if him knowing Traveling it was stolen. across land that ? a crime stitute federal that living contention of a the Government ‍‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‍presumably lines and state necessary element of might been is not a scienter man not her husband per- There indiscreet, be sustained. immoral, certainly delicti cannot nothing under the statute him, criminal haps, Mann Act violation transporting across 24-year-old, al- a vehicle her, near about For well. coholic, transporting person woman, unless the leave line state married * * Alabama, stolen. It off with to be run it knows behind children * * certain young 17-year-old boy then fur- noted to be involving money further as well was but types nish her crimes scienter delinquency. possible But it moral part it is not indicia accused federal, conceptually practi- dissolute separate, crime either to be either — n respect proof cally it interstate. extend —-that ' scienter, as an element of the make a fed- What would these actions agency delicti, and accused. offense—and all would—was eral goods receiving in the So crime stolen knowledge by her was com- Hoover knowing stolen, them to be and in the mitting crime, she a federal and that bar, possible sep- crime arate, was, state, knowingly as the mak- cases conceptually practically, either ing guilt herself in the associate guilty knowledge the element of in the participating transportation agency and the element of required knowledge by offense. That her of the accused as the criminal. the car was stolen. It was her pages 94 F.2d at 243-244. no one else’s alone criminally. would her cast happened has And whаt Forte? For conduct to amount to a fed- Naught imprimatur save the has now re indispensa- offense, it was eral therefore Wigmorian it from a Index Ex- moved knowingly that she to show facili- ble purgatorius. For the most unmis financing, (by etc.) transportation tated by express takable terms reference knowing of the car Hoover the car it, principle of Forte her, to have been stolen. As to the whole authoritatively approved in Smith v. upon knowledge turns crime of the stolen States, 1954, 75 S. character of the vehicle. There is thus 192, 199: Ct. L.Ed. no “crime” which be carved into convict order to of serious “In the theoretical elements of violence, capital of- crimes apart personal knowledge from the fenses, was re- specific, personal and immediate de- quired that someone had indeed in- fendant. violence, the so-called cor- flicted pus delicti. Once the existence of the V. established, however, just crime precisely such considera- guilt of the accused could be based the Court in Forte to hold led tions encompass otherwise uncorroborated own must his the corroboration in a But such as crime con- confession. element—the third defendant’s tangible is no there in- evasion crime. “In the tax the instant with nection be isolated transportation which can as a cor- corpus delicti is the crime, As to this it pus delicti. in interstate commerce the of Mary- be shown crime has of Columbia cannot the District from 222, 581, per L. abetting 68 S.Ct. 92 means assist the Appended 12 A.L.R. 279. The in Ed. petrator crime.” to this the of following of at the trial the substantive footnote. structions the statement g., rule. present this E. T can’t followed crimes at a crime be “4. To emphatic you, gentlemen, guilt it too an abettor. make aider or of evidence presence States, a when com mere crime is 150 v. United Hicks course, is, 1137, 1139, not sufficient to ren mitted of ” guilty Re, as aider one abettor.’ Di 332 der States v. United Cf.

769 1120; Tingle identifying v. United A.L.R. States committed 573; Wyn Mo.) (C.A.8th 38 F.2d faced with we are Thus the accused. Cal.) (C.A.9th koop v. United States applying cor the either the choice 799; Daeche v. United F.2d offense this rule to roboration (C.A.2d N.Y.) 250 F. 566.” States greater according even the accused page 154, 348 U.S. at ato protection affords than the rule page 198. prosecu in a homicide defendant States, tion, v. United Evans recognition by a This is 461; Kan.) (C.A.10th Mur 122 F.2d Court there are some occurrences App.D.C. ray States, 53 any apart which are not crimes sense finding F. or of particular from the of the de wholly inapplicable rule because fendant and as to them “the corrobora offense, stripping of the the nature implicate tive evidence must the accused guarantee the accused this alto in order to show that crime has been gether. rule, apply the We choose to is, committed”.12 as it should guarantee, with its broader Wig- been, repudiation Professor tangible crimes in which extravagant more’s statement with which delicti, corpus where the corrobora agree13 others do not and which actual implicate tive evidence must the ac ly hostility outcropping but of his in order cused to show that a crime to the whole idea corroboration See, g., has been committed. e. Ta anguish he solve because suffers we (C.A.4th Md.) bor v. United States way this in an fol American and do not 254; 152 F.2d United States v. Ker English exper low the But rule.14 (C.A.2d) 923; tess 139 F.2d Ercoli enlightened ience even era subse App. 76 [U.S.] quent Wigmore to 1940 when Professor 354; D.C. 131 F.2d Pines v. wrote, last or 1937 when (C.A.8th Iowa) United States writing Appeals in Forte 825; Forte App.D.C. contemporary vivid influence 12. It intoxicating beverages should be noted that the corrobora- res- one’s implicate merely tive evidence “must the ac- taurant without a license. But Consequently, proof corpus cused.” delicti, it because sufficient merely proof it effect, tend to whole substantiate involves general prosecution charge, trustworthiness of the admission is not relieved “implicate proving corpus does delicti aliunde accused.” Since the “corroborative evidence” is the confession.” 103 U.Pa.L.Rev. at 651. evi- ** * independent admission, dence “Proof of the scienter transporting means that ear stolen across state * * itself, knowing degree, must to some credible link line stolen prove accused thе event. [is] As I essential later, criminality therefore, and, Smith and should in- have actual- ly prosecution’s added delicti.” 103 burden. cluded U.Pa. at 655. L.Rev. Corpus 13. See Proof Declicti “Although present requires rule in- Confession, Aliunde the Defendant’s dependent the first (1955). U.Pa.L.Rev. “Professor elements some of Wigmore refers to such a definition as underlying factors deliciti requires proof ‘absurd’ since it provide much would reason for rule utilizing entire case without the defend- applying the rule to third element confession, today ant’s no court ad- first two.” 103 as to the U.Pa.L.Rev. many heres to such a definition. In at 676. however, very crimes, prove difficult to Wigmore, delicti without Evidence connect- at 395 ing 1940) (3rd defendant : ed. crime. Among policy driving, rule these would be drunken “The this sort illegal any narcotics, questionable. of one use No doubts offense in- conveys fraud, volving warning evasion, proper such which it is a as tax any warning one; offense of which but it is which scienter is an can be ele- equal efficacy by ment, transporting given such as a car with across counsel judge charge knowing his state line it stolen or intelligence knowingly permitting consumption Common the facts. cau- of

770 justified upon Report,15 based confessions has not Wickersham wrought by impermissible physical or optimistic con abuse of his belief psychological psychopathic enforce coercive of law fessions as an instrument any Scarcely thing past. con forces.16 other On ment is a subject prospect trary, has so do we hardly come face to with the face elsewhere, police may, occupied of attention state17 as much critical engulf Unscrupulous Supreme it criminals undertakes us too. Court as determining Wigmore fears, indеed, speak responsibility serious of federal, successfully through unscrupulous convictions, advo state whether sufficiently Haley minds, 300, 330; jurors’ tion, 92 v. will L.Ed. State 302, Ohio, 596, laying 1948, appreciate it, S.Ct. 332 U.S. 68 v, 224; shape More- 92 of Ten rule of law. L.Ed. Ashcraft State of a rod in 274, supposed nessee, over, danger 1946, 66 S.Ct. 327 U.S. which exaggerated People 667; guard against greatly 544, 90 L.Ed. Malinski v. 401, danger York, 1945, thought. lies U.S. That State New 324 in common guilt. 1029; 781, wholly 65 Ashcraft S.Ct. 89 L.Ed. in a false confession Tennessee, 1944, however, confessions, v. 322 U.S. far State of ‍‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‍so Such 1192; 921, 143, of our 64 L.Ed. Ander us in the annals S.Ct. 88 handed down to exceedingly States, 1943, (ante, courts, son 318 U.S. rare v. United have been ordinarily, 350, 599, 829; might 867). Mc S.Ct. 87 L.Ed. a rule 63 § Such States, 1943, really needed, be mere- Nabb 318 U.S. least if not 332, rule, 819; ly superfluous. 608, Ward But 63 S.Ct. 87 L.Ed. 547, today constantly Texas, rules, 1942, v. resorted 316 U.S. are State of 1663; by unscrupulous 1139, as mere 62 v. counsel S.Ct. 86 Vernon L.Ed. entrap Alabama, 547, 1941, State of 313 61 verbal U.S. formulas 1092, 1513; judge of words L.Ed. v. into error S.Ct. 85 Lomax the trial capa- jury. Texas, 1941, charge 544, These State of 313 U.S. 61 in his to the positive 1511; 956, 85 L.Ed. White v. make often S.Ct. bilities abuse justice.” Texas, 1940, 530, State of 310 60 S. to the course U.S. obstruction Canty 1032, 1342; L.Ed. v. Ct. 84 on Law Ob- National Commission 1940; 629, Alabama, Enforcement, Report State 309 U.S. No. servance 988; 612, 84 60 S.Ct. L.Ed. Chambers 11, in Law Enforcement Lawlessness Florida, 227, 1940, v. McCormick, State of U.S. (1931). 309 Evidence 109 See 472, 60 84 L.Ed. 716. (1954). S.Ct. at 228 And in others the has had to Court 16. In eases the numerous involuntary deal the contention due down convictions struck LaGay, 1958, confessions. Cicenia v. a confession was ob manner 504, 1297, 2 357 1523; 78 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d U.S. Alabama, 1960, v. 361 tained. Blackburn California, Crooker v. State of 242; 199, 274, 4 L.Ed.2d U.S. 80 S.Ct. 433, 1958, 1287, 2 L. 357 U.S. 78 S.Ct. Spano People York, v. of New State 1448; Arizona, Ed.2d 1958, v. Thomas State 1202, 315, 3 1959, 360 79 S.Ct. U.S. 885, 390, 2 L. 78 S.Ct. 356 U.S. ; Payne v. Arkan 1265 State of L.Ed.2d 863; People v. Ed.2d of State of Stein 844, sas, 1958, 560, 356 S.Ct. U.S. 78 156, York, 1953, 346 New U.S. 73 S.Ct. 975; Mallory 2 L.Ed.2d 1957, 1522; Allen, 1077, 97 L.Ed. Brown v. 449, 1356, L. 77 S.Ct. 1 354 U.S. 1953, 443, 397, 344 U.S. 73 S.Ct. 97 Alabama, 1479; Ed.2d Fikes v. State 469; California, L.Ed. 1952, Stroble v. State of 281, 1957, 191, 77 1 L. 352 U.S. 246; S.Ct. 181, 599, 843 72 S.Ct. 96 L. U.S. 1954, Alabama, v. 348 Ed.2d Reeves 872; Gallegos Nebraska, v. Ed. State оf 214, 700; 891, L.Ed. 75 99 U.S. S.Ct. 55, 141, 1951, 342 72 S.Ct. 96 L. U.S. Leyra Denno, 556, 1954, v. 74 347 U.S. 86; Taylor Alabama, v. Ed. State of 948; 716, 98 L.Ed. United States S.Ct. 1948, 252, 1415, 335 68 S.Ct. U.S. 1951, 36, Carignan, v. 97, U.S. 72 S.Ct. 1935; Mitchell, United v. L.Ed. States 48; L.Ed. Johnson v. Com. 896, 1944, 65, 64 322 U.S. S.Ct. 88 L.Ed. 1950, Pennsylvania, 881, 340 U.S. 71 S. 1140; Lyons Oklahoma, 1944, v. State of 640; L.Ed. v. Harris State Ct. 64 S.Ct. U.S. 88 L.Ed. Carolina, 338 U.S. South People 1481; v. Lisenba State of 1815; 93 L.Ed. v. S.Ct. Turner California, 1941, 314 U.S. 62 S.Ct. Pennsylvania, 1949, Com. 62, 338 U.S. L.Ed. 166. 1810; 93 L.Ed. Watts Indiana, 1949, enough difficult State of 17. The v. 1801; Upshaw 1347, 93 L.Ed. written confessions obtained formal police protracted questioning. _ 1948, 335 after 69 S. 100; practical impossibility Ct. citi- Lee v. State of alleged Mississippi, 1948, disproving confession is zen adopted requirement Opper. cor not Opper cates to of claim the in down laid they do, evidence, independent the rule roboration. But when that the justice such, protection corpus of court of need accords the de establish the strange right, they really, one, (or in a licti—whether both), are element making way, unintentionally their required sort of or three. All that was independent frеedom was contribution to a civilization evidence tend under law. This affirms for the world establish the trustworthiness of the may that man in his nobler institutions admission. image reflect the “sendeth God who making But in choice as to just unjust.” rain on the limited in the field of corrobora- French, Although, pointed confessions, Supreme out in tion of Court ignored Opper supra, reject see note Court did not undertake to altogether, there, principle one, Smith its reliance and Forte on what elements— inferentially Opper two, any particular type here on or three —of States, crime would constitute the delicti. suggests strongly principle Thus Forte of cor- Fifth that which the Circuit holds that roboration of all three elements stands gave right Supreme with its hand Court unimpeaehed. Indeed, it stands with.re- Smith, away by left it took its vigor prestige. newed Opper. proper I do not think that a reading Opper supports YI. in- only question terpretation,18 implica- leaves whether or the awesome transportation interstate Supreme tion that each of the two opinions Court knowing it vitality to be stolen that cate- mo- exhausted its gory “intangible” delivering crime as to which laid it down. ment the Justice Wig- Supreme Court, disregarding Opper dealt with was not What charge absurdity, requires one, more’s cor- elements of delicti—whether roboration of the third element. Several concerned two or three. Rather was things conclusively point to the answer of evi with the character and amount First, proposition for me. of law is required independent the admis dence specifically announced in Forte. It was (confession). opinion re sion As rejecting inadequate the reason for flects, of federal decisions the course categorical divergent. the defendant’s admission There had been to that he broadly knew the car was stolen. The main streams defined were three by Among careful distinction made these was Forte. the Court. holdings main of Forte proposi Court the two for the This line of cases stood convincing evidence that tion that merely knew what Forte involved. With that to do more than admission had awareness, precise the Court then cited support had the confession. It example specifically “touching Forte Smith as an and tend substantial evidence ing tangible in which there is no “crimes prove each of the main elements corpus delicti,” page parts of the or constituent page Second, for the rea- principle Of course today’s damage intersection oral, inherent only informal enhanced as to state- suits. here) by suspеct (as ments made arresting 18. “Nor does seek to undo that investigating officers. just which Smith done. Smith in- just a case of one un- often man’s question volved the as to what was against word another’s. corroborated corpus delicti and the nature express “word”, unlike an ac- And that * the corroboration needed *. guilt knowledgment carries Opper was concerned with the lat- of trustworthiness due to its some seeds point of corroboration ter * the crime obviously damaging tones and awesome French merely character, relate to some page supra, 232 F.2d at evidentiary subsidiary element or detail. liberty may therefor turn on A man’s 19. From Ercoli v. United U.S.App.D.C. “admissions” a kind uncorroborated ” * * * was, ex- as well as those admission sons discussed in Forte alone concerning e., by ample, element, defend- outlined me third i. factors “aiding unique problems this in a inhеrent ant’s connection with crime tangible tangible abetting” case, type is is the Government incapa- merely is must the vehicle. The crime nevertheless offer evidence inde- tangible pendent Ala- An demonstration. the admission to establish ble no crime. That is as bama car is in Texas. the trustworthiness of the admission Formerly Alabama from An Alabama is driven to critical fact. car necessary. Ala- An not to Texas. That is crime. So much was demon- by analysis to Alabama from strated minute car driven bama is Court’s corroborating testimony by Still that not the owner. in Smith Texas one companion makes all—that as well as in the net worth no crime. What —and Calderon, a crime the defendant’s case United States v. capable 202.21 it was That 348 U.S. stolen. S.Ct. being pack- felt, wrapped in seen, aAs vital element in the Government’s The weighed age, photographed. abetter, against this aider intangible. crime is beyond to a reasonable establish VII. doubt that she knew that the car was applies require that the Once Smith to to stolen. On this record we have assume implicate evidence must “corroborative directly jury proved that to e., 20—i. third the accused” element— only by Quite apart admission. by guide Smith then furnishes the controversy, the “third element” Smith sufficiency to measure of that cor require trust- now specifically roboration. holds worthiness of the admission necessary for “corroboration is all ele by independent vital fact established by offense ad ments established corroborative evidence. * * *,” 348 at alone missions U.S. intangible. The The crime was page 156, page at 199. same The S.Ct. encompassed element therefore differently in idea stated somewhat implicating this defendant three — supports Oрper that the “corroboration Knowledge of stolen charac- crime. sufficiently admitted the essential facts solely ter of the vehicle was established justify of their inference by was no cor- her admissions. There page 93, at at truth.” S.Ct. either both of these roboration as to page Opper and 164. To extent in- evidence was therefore factors. The standing for a Smith rather than lessen as matter sufficient of law. ing corroboration burden ought may think, actually enhance it. some granted. have been “ ** element For if the * * * by respectfully I therefore dissent. established of the offense proffered corroboration Where summarizes independent meaning of “facts” made Forte case. of its own in turn made admission which were page page 154, at 20. 348 U.S. at extrajudicial statements other known such other admissions accused requirement corroboration 21. The must be corroborated in terms of the theoretical measured they can be received to evidence before corpus delicti, the formal elements confession. See note corroborate ultimate statement or the nature page text at the related 348 U.S. evidentiary character of the than rather page 157, 75 at S.Ct. admitted. fact rejected in- In Calderon the Court Smith, adequate page at corroboration of certain facts The Court concerning history specifically page 198, financial the accused’s at “apparently they necessity were points of corrobora- because and, [accused], from the stand- “made obtained extends tion *** uncorroborated, ing charged cannot serve cor- with in- an official wrongdo- possibility vestigating [the accused’s] admis- roborate page 165, ing” embraces sions.” when “statement page 188. case.” vital Government’s element

Case Details

Case Name: Patricia Yvonne Smyly v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Feb 24, 1961

Citation: 287 F.2d 760

Docket Number: 18479

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.