United States v. Robert Arley Johnson
1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7006, 434 F.2d 827 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an object to be considered a 'counterfeit obligation of the United States' under 18 U.S.C. § 472, it must bear such a likeness to a genuine obligation that it is calculated to deceive an honest, unsuspecting person of ordinary observation. An imitation printed on only one side is insufficiently complete to meet this standard.
Facts:
- Appellant Johnson paid a door-to-door salesman for a magazine subscription using one $10 and one $5 note.
- These two notes were Xeroxed reproductions of both sides of genuine currency that had been pasted together.
- The magazine salesman accepted these two-sided notes as genuine payment.
- Later, while waiting to be booked at a police station, Johnson was found to possess two $5 notes and one $20 note.
- Johnson attempted to dispose of and hide these additional notes at the station.
- These notes were Xeroxed reproductions of only one side of genuine currency; the reverse side was blank.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnson was charged in a federal trial court on two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 472: Count I for fraudulent uttering and passing of counterfeit notes, and Count II for possession of other counterfeit notes.
- During the trial, Johnson's attorney and the prosecution stipulated that all the notes in question were legally 'counterfeit obligations of the United States.'
- Johnson was convicted on both counts and concurrent sentences were imposed.
- Johnson (Appellant) appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a xeroxed reproduction of only one side of a Federal Reserve Note constitute a 'counterfeit obligation of the United States' under 18 U.S.C. § 472?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, District Judge
No. A one-sided reproduction lacks sufficient resemblance to a genuine obligation to be considered a counterfeit under 18 U.S.C. § 472. The court applies the test that a counterfeit must bear such a likeness to a genuine obligation 'as is calculated to deceive an honest, sensible and unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care.' The two-sided notes Johnson passed met this test because they were, in fact, accepted as genuine. However, the one-sided notes found on his person were on poor paper, had bad ink, and were blank on the reverse. Following the reasoning in United States v. Smith, the court found these items were only partially manufactured and lacked the requisite resemblance to be legally counterfeit under this specific statute. The court distinguished this from the broader statute, 18 U.S.C. § 474, which explicitly covers obligations made 'in whole or in part,' suggesting the government brought the charge under the wrong, more narrow statute for the one-sided notes.
Analysis:
This decision refines the legal definition of 'counterfeit' under 18 U.S.C. § 472 by emphasizing the quality and completeness of the imitation. It establishes a clear precedent that a counterfeit must be sufficiently complete to be facially deceptive to an ordinary person, meaning one-sided reproductions do not qualify under this statute. The case serves as a crucial guide for prosecutors, highlighting the importance of selecting the appropriate statutory provision based on the nature of the counterfeit object. This ruling creates a distinction between fully-formed counterfeits prosecutable under § 472 and inchoate or partial imitations that may fall under the broader scope of § 474.
