United States v. Theodore Kittelt

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Theodore Kittelt

363 F.2d 504, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5675

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 1966

Docket10380

StatusPublished

This text of 363 F.2d 504 (United States v. Theodore Kittelt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Theodore Kittelt, 363 F.2d 504, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5675 (4th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted on two counts of an indictment charging him with passing counterfeit Federal Reserve notes. The receiver of the notes testified that the defendant arranged with him to deliver the counterfeit money through an unidentified third person, and that at the appointed times and places a person appeared and delivered the counterfeit notes precisely in accordance with the prearranged plan.

The defendant does not challenge the general fairness of the trial or of the charge. His only complaint is that the judge should not have told the jury that

“whatever a person is legally capable of doing himself can be done through another as an agent. Hence, if the acts of an employee or other agent are wil-fully ordered or directed, or wilfully authorized or consented to by the accused, the law holds the accused responsible for such acts as though personally committed by the accused.”

*505 The objection made is that the word “agent” had not been mentioned during the trial, and that therefore it was error to introduce the concept of agency in' the charge to the jury. Since it is conceded that the circumstances testified to, if believed by the jury, would permit an inference of agency, the contention is insubstantial. We find the charge unexceptionable. Waters v. United States, 145 F.2d 240 (4th Cir.), affirming sub nom. United States v. Pritchard, 55 F. Supp. 201, 203-204 (W.D.S.C.1944).

The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted on two counts of an indictment charging him with passing counterfeit Federal Reserve notes. The receiver of the notes testified that the defendant arranged with him to deliver the counterfeit money through an unidentified third person, and that at the appointed times and places a person appeared and delivered the counterfeit notes precisely in accordance with the prearranged plan.

The defendant does not challenge the general fairness of the trial or of the charge. His only complaint is that the judge should not have told the jury that

“whatever a person is legally capable of doing himself can be done through another as an agent. Hence, if the acts of an employee or other agent are wil-fully ordered or directed, or wilfully authorized or consented to by the accused, the law holds the accused responsible for such acts as though personally committed by the accused.”

*505 The objection made is that the word “agent” had not been mentioned during the trial, and that therefore it was error to introduce the concept of agency in' the charge to the jury. Since it is conceded that the circumstances testified to, if believed by the jury, would permit an inference of agency, the contention is insubstantial. We find the charge unexceptionable. Waters v. United States, 145 F.2d 240 (4th Cir.), affirming sub nom. United States v. Pritchard, 55 F. Supp. 201, 203-204 (W.D.S.C.1944).

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 F.2d 504, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-theodore-kittelt-ca4-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack