These appellants, together with Jeff Stewart, were charged with six separate offenses growing out of the ownership and operation of a distillery in a barn located in Douglas county, Neb.
In the court below the appellants entered the usual demurrers to the indictment, and now urge that the'overruling'of their demurrers constituted error. The basis for this contention is that the description of the land upon which the bam containing the distillery was situated was vague and indefinite. They say: “Undoubtedly there were other bams upon the property in question and the indictments should at least allege the quarter section upon which the bam was situated.”
The various counts of the indictment described the bam as being on “the sixteen (16) acres, more or less, known as the balance of ninety-six (96) acres in Section 5, Township 15, Range 12, in the County of Douglas, Nebraska.” Each count charges the commission of an offense by the defendants Salerno, Can-iglia, Stewart," and McDonald jointly on a date specified. In the first count, they are charged with having made 14,400 gallons of mash fit for the production .of alcoholic spirits; in the second count, with having fermented the same number of gallons of mash; in the third count, with having separated 250 gallons of alcoholic spirits; in the fourth count, with having carried on the business of distillers of alcoholic spirits, with intent to defraud the United States of the tax on the 250 gallons of spirits distilled by them; in the fifth count, with having used two stills of approximately 150 gallons capacity each, for the purpose of distilling alcoholic spirits from a fermented mash in the bam. The sixth count charges them with an unlawful conspiracy to manufacture and transport from the bam intoxicating liquor, and charges that, in furtherance of the conspiracy, they committed the following overt acts: On or about March 23, 1931, Salerno talked to John Swanson about renting the described premises, and, on or about March 25, 1931, Salerno directed one of the conspirators to sign a lease for the property; on or about March 25, 1931, Salerno paid John Swanson, agent for the owner of the property, $75 on account of rent; on or about April 28,1931, Salerno, Caniglia, and McDonald transported whisky from these premises to a point near Ninetieth and Blondo streets; on or about April 29, 1931, Jeff Stewart was engaged in distilling whisky with two 150-gallon stills on the premises.
In Davis v. United States,
“The ‘identifying earmarks of the occasion’ thus required to be stated may relate to time, place, persons present, or other circumstances. In Rutledge v. United States (C. C. A.)
“Particular specification as to place would seem to be one of the most satisfactory earmarks, and one almost always within the knowledge of the pleader; but no particular earmark is indispensable. Thus, in Gaughan V. United States, supra [
“With these rulings in mind, let us examine the indictment in the case at bar. In the first place, the character of the offenses charged is somewhat unusual, and in itself tends to identify the transaction. The possession of a still, the operation of the same, carrying on the business of distillers, the possession of mash, constitute a transaction not of an ordinary nature. But this is not all. The still is particularly described in the indictment as to its construction, and as being set up, and as capable of operation. Further, the offenses are charged as being committed in association with three other persons, and these three persons are specifically named. When an offense is charged to have been committed in association with others, who are named, each additional associate named gives additional definiteness to the charge, and there comes a point where the mere number of associates so named is a sufficient identifying earmark of the' offense. We think that point was reached in the ease at bar.”
The “identifying earmarks” contained in this indictment, in addition to the time when the offenses were committed and the section, township, range, county, and state where they were committed, are as follows: That the offenses were committed in a bam on a *421 16-acre tract; that a specified amount of mash was involved; that a specified amount of liquor was separated from the mash; that two 150-gallon stills were used; that those associated in committing the offenses wore Salerno, Caniglia, McDonald, and Stewart; that they had conspired together to qperate the distillery, and, in furtherance of the conspiracy, had committed the overt acts here-inbefore referred to. Under the circumstances, we think that the essential facts were sufficiently stated and earmarked to enable the defendants to prepare their defense, and to constitute the judgment in this ease a complete bar to a seeond prosecution for any of the same offenses.
If the defendants were in doubt as to the property intended to be described, or feared that they might be taken by surprise by the testimony on the trial, they should have demanded a bill of particulars. Rinker v. United States (C. C. A.)
The Tenth Circuit has recently held sufficient an indictment charging possession of liquor at “a point in the seven hundred block on North Third street, in the city of Muskogee, Muskogee county, state of Oklahoma.” Tiller v. United States (C. C. A.)
The appellants entered pleas of not guilty. Jeff Stewart, the other defendant, entered a plea of guilty, and was the principal witness for the government upon the trial.
There was no dispute in the evidence as to the existence of a distillery in the bam in question. At the time of the raid by the government officers on April 29, 1931, the distillery was in full operation, with Jeff Stewart in charge. The appellants were not present. In order to connect them with the operation of the distillery, the government produced evidence to show that Salerno, Canig-lia, and a man by the name! of Serapo were associated together in the leasing of the premises; that Salerno and McDonald had employed Jeff Stewart as a “cooker”; and that Salerno and McDonald and Caniglia had all assisted in removing moonshine whisky from the distillery. The defendant Salerno denied that he had had anything whatever to do with the distillery or was interested in it in any way, although he admitted that he had on one occasion purchased liquor froip. Caniglia. McDonald denied any connection, but says that on one occasion he bought whisky from Caniglia on the farm. Caniglia testified that he and Serapo were the only ones who were interested in the distillery; that they had employed Jeff Stewart; that they sold a load of liquor to McDonald the first night that they ran the still; and that one load was delivered from the distillery to Salerno. This, in a very brief and general way, is an outline of the evidence.
The appellants were convicted. The court sentenced each appellant generally to a term in a county jail and imposed a fine. They have appealed from the judgments.
The appellants claim that the court erred in receiving, over objection, certain testimony of the witness Jeff Stewart. He had stated that he had been employed by Salomo and McDonald to operate the distillery, and was asked what compensation he was to receive. At that point the following question was' asked and the following answer given: “Q. What I want to get at is just what conversation there was, what the defendant told you about payment there? A. Well, I asked him what he figured he ought to pay me out of that, so there wasn’t no exact amount named right then, hut a little later on, why, I heard that this other fellow, that they had promised him a hundred dollars, so I figured I would get about a hundred and twenty-five or thirty.”
Appellants’ counsel moved to strike the answer as hearsay. The court said: “Well, it is not directly binding upon the defendant, that’s true, but yet! it is one of the incidents of the transaction. I think the testimony may stand.”
What the witness heard about the “other fellow” was hearsay, but the answer could have in no way prejudiced the appellants. So long as the witness was employed to operate the distillery, it was a matter of no consequence what they agreed to pay him, or whether he was to receive anything for his work. It was error without prejudice.
During the examination of this same wit *422 ness, reference was made to the “hijacking” of a load of liquor, and. the following took place: “Q. I don’t know just what you mean by wondering why they turned in about the truck being hijacked. What other conversation was there, if any, about the hijacking?”
This was objected to as leading and suggestive, and the objection was overruled. MA. Well, they was supposed to have been •robbed they, said — supposed to have been held rnp.”
: A motion was made to strike this answer, .and was overruled. “A. (continued). Well; I picked up the paper one evening and I seen iit where they had been robbed — ”
Appellants’ counsel objected to this as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and hearsay evidence. The objection was overruled. The appellants preserved exceptions to each of these rulings.
The witness Jeff Stewart had previously testified that the appellants had come to the distillery and loaded up a truck on several occasions, and on one particular occasion with 196 gallons of moonshine. The government intended to show, and later did show by circumstantial evidence, that this load of liquor had been taken from them by “hijackers”; that they had had a man arrested by the state authorities on that account — all this as bearing upon their participation in the business of operating a still.
The first question objected to merely called for conversation between the witness and a defendant relative to the asserted “hijacking” of the truck. It was neither leading nor suggestive, which were the only grounds of the objection. The answer was unobjeeitionable, because it referred to a statement ¡made by the appellants.
The answer relative to what the witness ■saw in the paper was not competent, but no motion was made to strike it, and, for that reason, no error was committed by the court •in'failing to sustain the objection interposed after the answer had been given.
The next specification of error urged relates to the government’s testimony, with respect to the giving of a gallon of whisky to W. G. Nichols, -the proprietor of the Checker Inti?" It appears that the inn was in dose proximity to the ' distillery, and that Mr. Nichols’ l-elations with ' the defendants, or some of them, were friendly. It also appears, from the government’s evidence, that Salemo was present when the gift was made. The testimony had some bearing Upon the question as- -to- -whether Salemo was associated with the other defendants in the operation of this distillery. The witness Stewart had testified that there had been a gallon of liquor set aside for Mr. Nichols. Under all the circumstances, it was not error to receive the testimony that Mr. Nichols had been given a gallon,of liquor in the presence of Salemo.
The next specification of error urged relates to the testimony of Jack Butler. It appears that McDonald had filed a complaint in -the state court against him, growing out of the daimed “hijacking” of the load of liquor. Butler was permitted to testify, over the objection of the defendants, that McDonald had filed the complaint; that he (Butler) was arrested and gave bond. He was then asked what disposition was made of his ease. This was objected to as immaterial. The objection was overruled, and an exception preserved. The witness then stated that he was found not guilty; that the complaining witnesses in the case were McDonald and Salerno ; that the charge was robbery of McDonald and Salemo on the 28th day of April, 1931, the night that the government contended “hijackers” had taken the load of liquor. The purpose of the testimony was to indicate that Salemo and McDonald were associated in the unlawful enterprises charged in the indictment. We think that most of the testimony elicited by the question was material, and that the court did-not err in receiving it. The question, in the form in which it was put, may not have called for material testimony, but, taking the question and the answer together, the testimony elicited did bear upon the question of guilt.
The next specification of error argued relates to the testimony of the appellant Canig-lia on cross-examination. He had testified to the sale of one load of liquor from the distillery to Salerno, and to the sale of another load to McDonald. He also said, on being cross-examined: “I believe I gave some liquor to Walter Nichols once. I believe it was the night that Mr. Salemo was out there.”
. He was then asked: “Q. What kind of liquor was that? A. Well, there was on [one] gallop — ”
At this point, counsel objected on the ground that it was improper cross-examination, not having been gone into on direct examination. The court said: “Well it- is closely related to matters that were gone into — I overrule that objection.”
The witness then continued: “I 'knew it was just one gallon. I do not know what kind of liquor was in there because Jeff Stew- *423 are jugged it up and put it into the container. It was ready for me when I left. I gave it to Nichols. Jeff Stewart, as I understood it, promised it to him, and he told me to drop it off at the Checker Inn.”
This specification of error and those which follow relate to the cross-examination of the defendants.
The rule governing such cross-examination is stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the ease of Raffel v. United States,
“The immunity from giving testimony is one which the defendant may waive by offering himself as a witness. Reagan, v. United States,
“If, therefore, the questions asked of the defendant were logically relevant, and competent within the scope of the rules of cross-examination, they wore proper questions, unless there is some reason of policy in the law of evidence which requires their exclusion.”
The decision in the ease of Tucker v. United States,
“If the accused testifies in his own behalf, manifestly his testimony should be subjected to the same tests for determining its truthfulness as that of any other witness. The primary purpose of cross-examination in the federal courts is to test the truth of the) testimony adduced by the direct examination and to clarify or explain the same. It is not to prove independent facts in the case of the cross-examining party.
“If there is good reason why a defendant should not be compelled to be a witness against himself, there ought to be equally good reason why, if he has testified voluntarily upon one issue, ho should not be compelled to testify against his will concerning matters wholly unrelated to that issue, which would not be within the scope of proper cross-examination if he were an, ordinary witness.
“We conclude that, when a defendant in a criminal case voluntarily becomes a witness in his own behalf, he subjects himself to erossexamination and impeachment to- the same extent as any other witness in the same situation, but he does not subject himself to cross-examination and impeachment to any greater extent” — citing Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma (C. C. A. 8)
See, also, Gideon v. United States (C. C. A. 8)
The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Bolling v. United States,
This states the rule too broadly, and goes beyond tlie cases cited as authority for it. A defendant may take the stand, and, by omitting to testify as to incriminating matters unrelated to those matters about which he has testified, prevent the prosecution from cross-examining him fully, sub jecting himself, however, to the unfavorable inferences which, may *424 be drawn from bis failure to make a full disclosure. This is well illustrated by Caminetti v. United States, supra.
It must also' be kept in mind that it is not the specific matters which are mentioned by the defendant in his direct testimony which determine the scope of the cross-examination, but the subject inquired about. “The right of cross-examination is not confined to the specific questions or details of the direct examination, but extends to the subjeet-matter inquired about." De Witt v. Skinner,
The cross-examination of Caniglia, who had testified generally as to his connection with this distillery and his relation to the other appellants, and the cross-examination of Salerno as to whether he had ever purchased any liquor at the distillery, he having testified on his direct examination that he had no criminal connection with the distillery and no interest in the liquor produced, was not improper. See Fitzpatrick v. United States, supra; Powers v. United States, supra.
There was error in the cross-examination of McDonald. What occurred was this: He was asked whether he had ever been convicted of a felony. His answer was, “What do you mean, felony ?” He was then asked, “Have you ever been convicted of an offense for which you might have been sent •to the penitentiary if the judge had decided to send you there?” This was-objected to as improper cross-examination; the objection was overruled; and his. answer was, “I don’t believe I have.” He was then asked, “Don’t you know?” His answer was, “Oh, I have been arrested for speeding or something like that.” Following this, the cross-examiner asked, “Been arrested for more than that, haven’t you?” This was objected to as “incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not proper cross-examination, whether he has been arrested or not.” The objection was overruled, and his answer was, “Well, I was arrested once for carrying concealed weapons, that is, in my car.”
“Q. Do you carry weapons all the time? (Objected to on the same grounds, and objection overruled.) A. No, sir.
“Q. How much of the time? (Same objection; same ruling.) A. Only when I have some money on me.
“Q. Do you have a permit? (Same objection; same ruling.) A. No, sir.”
The question as to whether McDonald had .been arrested and the question as to whether he carried a gun without a permit did not call for evidence relevant to any of the issues in the case, nor did they constituté proper impeachment. ■
The general rule is that such improper cross-examination constitutes reversible error. Havener v. United States (C. C. A. 8)
We must therefore determine whether, because of the errors referred to, McDonald was actually prejudiced. The record does not indicate that government counsel was intentionally unfair, but, rather, indicates that McDonald, by evading questions whieh were proper, and making unresponsive answers, led counsel and the court into committing the errors complained of. McDonald volunteered that he had been arrested for speeding. He also volunteered that he had been arrested for carrying concealed weapons. He was the one who injected into the ease the subject of arrest and the carrying of weapons. There can be no doubt that it was the testimony of Jeff Stewart which brought about the conviction of Caniglia, Salerno, and McDonald. All of the other testimony in the case was merely corroborative of Stewart. According to his story, he had been employed by Salerno and McDonald as a “cooker,” and he disclosed fully his connection with the distillery and the connection of the other defendants with it. While it was the contention of Salerno *425 and McDonald that they were mere customers of Scrapo and Caniglia, who operated the distillery, they both admitted knowing these men and having received liqnor produced in the distillery. The jury believed the story of Jeff Stewart. That they might have believed this story in so far as it involved Caniglia and Salerno, but have -rejected it as to McDonald except for the admissions obtained from him upon cross-examination that he had been arrested for carrying concealed weapons and that he did on occasion carry weapons without a permit, is highly improbable.
In Apt v. United States,
In view of the abundance of competent evidence in this case to justify the eonvietion of McDonald, and in view of the eonvietion of Caniglia and Salerno upon virtually the same evidence, we have reached the conclusion that we would not be justified in holding that the improper cross-examination of McDonald deprived him of a fair trial or constituted reversible error.
The judgments as to all of the appellants are affirmed.