Schmuck v. United States
489 U.S. 705 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Mailings that are incident to an essential part of an ongoing fraudulent scheme satisfy the mailing element of the mail fraud statute, even if they occur after the fraudster receives money. To qualify as a lesser included offense under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(c), the elements of the lesser offense must be a subset of the elements of the charged offense (the "elements test").
Facts:
- Wayne T. Schmuck, a used-car distributor, purchased used cars and rolled back their odometers to show lower mileage.
- Schmuck then sold these altered automobiles to retail car dealers in Wisconsin at artificially inflated prices.
- The unwitting dealers, relying on the false odometer readings, resold the cars to retail customers at inflated prices.
- To complete each resale to a customer, Wisconsin law required the dealer to submit a title-application form to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
- These title-application forms were sent via mail.
- The successful transfer of title was necessary for the dealers to complete their sales and, in turn, was essential for Schmuck to maintain his ongoing relationships of trust with the dealers upon whom his scheme depended.
Procedural Posture:
- Wayne T. Schmuck was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on 12 counts of mail fraud.
- Before trial, Schmuck moved to dismiss the indictment and also requested a jury instruction on the lesser offense of odometer tampering, both of which the District Court denied.
- A jury convicted Schmuck on all 12 counts.
- Schmuck, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- A divided three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed the conviction, holding that the District Court erred in refusing to provide the lesser included offense instruction.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated the panel decision and granted a rehearing en banc.
- The en banc Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's conviction, rejecting the panel's reasoning and formally adopting the 'elements test' for lesser included offenses.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a mailing satisfy the "in furtherance of a scheme to defraud" element of the federal mail fraud statute if it is a routine and legally required step in a transaction that is essential to the perpetuation of an ongoing fraudulent scheme, even if it occurs after the schemer has received the fraudulent profits from that specific transaction? 2. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(c), is the proper standard for determining if an offense is "necessarily included" in a charged offense the "elements test" or the "inherent relationship" test?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
1. Yes, a mailing satisfies the mailing element of the mail fraud statute if it is incident to an essential part of an ongoing scheme to defraud. The Court reasoned that Schmuck's was not a 'one-shot' operation but an ongoing fraudulent venture whose success depended upon his continued harmonious relations with the retail dealers. The mailings of the title-registration forms, although routine and occurring after Schmuck was paid, were essential to the passage of title to the retail purchasers. A failure in the passage of title would have jeopardized Schmuck's relationship with the dealers and brought his scheme to an abrupt halt. This distinguishes the case from precedents like Kann and Maze, where the mailings were merely post-fraud accounting among victims and were not essential to the scheme's continuation. 2. The proper standard is the "elements test." One offense is necessarily included in another only when the elements of the lesser offense form a subset of the elements of the offense charged. The Court adopted this test because it is grounded in the text of Rule 31(c) ("necessarily included"), is consistent with the rule's common-law history, provides greater certainty and predictability for both prosecution and defense, and preserves mutuality by ensuring the defendant has proper notice of all potential charges from the indictment. The offense of odometer tampering requires proof of knowingly and willfully altering an odometer, which is not an element of mail fraud; therefore, it is not a lesser included offense under this test.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
1. No, the mailing of title-application forms does not satisfy the mail fraud statute because the fraudulent scheme was complete once Schmuck received payment from the dealers. The dissent argued that the majority's decision is inconsistent with precedent, particularly Kann, Parr, and Maze, where the Court held that mailings occurring after the fraud reaches fruition are not 'for the purpose of executing' the scheme. The fraud was complete when Schmuck pocketed the dealer's money for each car. The subsequent title mailings by the innocent dealers were merely 'incidental and collateral to the scheme,' not a part of its execution. The majority's logic, which focuses on the necessity of the mailings for the scheme's long-term continuation, would wrongly convert any fraud where mail is predictably used at some point into a federal mail fraud case.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified and arguably expanded the scope of the federal mail fraud statute by endorsing the 'lulling' or 'perpetuation of the scheme' theory. It establishes that even legally required, routine mailings by a third party can satisfy the statute if they are essential to the long-term success of an ongoing fraud. More importantly, the case resolved a major circuit split by definitively adopting the rigid, text-based 'elements test' for lesser included offenses under Rule 31(c). This holding prioritizes predictability and constitutional notice requirements over the more flexible, evidence-based 'inherent relationship' test, impacting how trial strategies are formed and how juries are instructed in federal criminal cases.
Unlock the full brief for Schmuck v. United States