Harris v. United States

227 U.S. 340, 33 S. Ct. 289, 57 L. Ed. 534, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2304
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 24, 1913
Docket602
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 227 U.S. 340 (Harris v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harris v. United States, 227 U.S. 340, 33 S. Ct. 289, 57 L. Ed. 534, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2304 (1913).

Opinion

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the court.

Indictment under the act, of June 25, -1910. It contains three counts charging defendants (we shall so call plaintiffs *341 in error and petitioners) with transporting and causing to be transported in interstate commerce certain named women, for the purpose of prostitution.

After a demurrer to the indictment was overruled and trial upon the plea of not guilty, defendants were convicted, and’defendant Harris was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and defendant Gréen for one year, both to pay costs of prosecution, and judgment was entered accordingly. The judgment was affirmed , by the Circuit Court of . Appeals. 194 Fed. Rep. 634.

The. question of the constitutionality of the law was raised as in the cases which we have just decided, and nothing need.be added to the opinion expressed in No. 381, Hoke v. United States, ante, p. 308, and we will pass' to the errors assigned.

It is contended that there is a. variance between the allegations and proof, in that the women .transported were named in the indictment as Nellie Stover and Stella Larkins and that the proof shows the latter’s name was Estelle Bowles and the right name of Nellie Stover was Myrtie Watson. The point was not made either in the .trial court or in the Court-of Appeals. It comes, therefore, too late. But see, however, the opinion -in No. 603, Bennett v. United States, ante, p. 333.

The úéxt point made by defendants is that defendant Harris was entitled 'to an acquittal because of the insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdiet of guilty. In passing on this contention the Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence and .added its judgment of. its suffi-. ciency to that of the jury. We refer'to the opinion of the court and concur in its comment and conclusion.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Beach
324 U.S. 193 (Supreme Court, 1945)
United States v. Edwards
14 F. Supp. 384 (S.D. California, 1936)
State Ex Rel. Knox v. Superior Oil Co.
119 So. 360 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1928)
Jackson v. United States
297 F. 20 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)
Oesting v. United States
234 F. 304 (Ninth Circuit, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 U.S. 340, 33 S. Ct. 289, 57 L. Ed. 534, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-united-states-scotus-1913.