United States v. Aaron Carl Carter
455 F.2d 354, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11441 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's admission to making an ambiguous statement like intending to "down a couple of them bad bills," coupled with the knowing possession of counterfeit currency, is sufficient circumstantial evidence for a trial court to find the specific intent to defraud required for a conviction.
Facts:
- Police and Secret Service agents used a female informant to arrange a meeting with Willis Lewis Adams to purchase heroin and possibly counterfeit money.
- The appellant, Carter, accompanied Adams to this meeting, which was under surveillance.
- Following the meeting, police arrested both Adams and Carter.
- A search of Carter revealed two counterfeit bills mixed in with a large amount of genuine currency in his pocket.
- Carter initially told officers he had won the bills playing pool and did not know they were counterfeit.
- Later, while testifying as a defense witness at Adams's trial, Carter admitted that during the informant meeting, he had said, "Yeah, I had to come in and down a couple of them bad bills."
- At his own trial, Carter admitted he had known the bills were counterfeit for at least an hour before his arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- Carter was initially arrested for possession of counterfeit money, but the charges were dismissed.
- After Carter testified in the trial of an associate, the government revived the charges and obtained a grand jury indictment against him.
- Carter waived his right to a jury trial and was tried by a judge in a federal district court (court of first instance).
- After the trial, the court took the case under submission.
- The trial court subsequently found Carter guilty of possession of counterfeit Federal Reserve notes with intent to defraud.
- Carter (appellant) appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant's statement that he had to "down a couple of them bad bills," combined with his knowing possession of two counterfeit bills, sufficient evidence to prove a specific intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt?
Opinions:
Majority - Curtis, District Judge
Yes, the evidence is sufficient to prove a specific intent to defraud. The trial court, as the finder of fact, was entitled to interpret the slang phrase "to down a bill" as meaning to put a counterfeit bill into circulation as genuine. This interpretation, combined with the appellant's possession of the bills and his admitted knowledge that they were counterfeit, provided enough evidence to infer the requisite specific intent to defraud. The court was not required to accept the appellant's alternative explanation of the phrase, especially given his evasive answers and inconsistent statements, which damaged his credibility.
Dissenting - Hamlin, Circuit Judge
No, the evidence is not sufficient to prove intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution provided no evidence that the appellant ever attempted to pass the counterfeit money to anyone. The appellant possessed only two counterfeit bills alongside a large sum of genuine currency, and he provided a plausible, alternative explanation for his statement about "downing the bills"—that he meant to confront the person who gave them to him. Without more concrete evidence of an intent to pass the bills as genuine, the conviction cannot be sustained.
Analysis:
This case demonstrates how appellate courts grant significant deference to the trial court's role as fact-finder, particularly in interpreting evidence and assessing witness credibility. The decision establishes that a conviction for possessing counterfeit currency with intent to defraud can be sustained on circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's own ambiguous statements. It highlights that the prosecution does not necessarily need evidence of an actual attempt to pass the counterfeit notes if there is other evidence from which intent can be reasonably inferred.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Aaron Carl Carter