United States v. Sheridan
67 S. Ct. 332, 1946 U.S. LEXIS 1585, 329 U.S. 379 (1947)
Rule of Law:
Under the National Stolen Property Act, a person who cashes a forged check drawn on an out-of-state bank 'causes' its interstate transportation 'with unlawful or fraudulent intent,' because the subsequent transportation for collection is a foreseeable consequence that serves the unlawful purpose of delaying detection and facilitating escape.
Facts:
- On July 19, 1943, in Jackson, Michigan, P. H. D. Sheridan cashed three forged checks.
- Two of the checks were drawn on a bank in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
- These checks purported to be drawn by 'U. S. E. F. C. 14A A. J. Davis, Commissioner,' an entity and person that did not exist.
- Sheridan received cash, goods, or hotel services in exchange for the checks.
- The Michigan banks that cashed the checks forwarded them to the Missouri bank for payment.
- The Missouri bank marked the checks 'no account' and returned them unpaid to the Michigan banks.
Procedural Posture:
- Sheridan was indicted in federal court on three counts of violating the National Stolen Property Act.
- A jury in the federal trial court found Sheridan guilty on all three counts.
- Sheridan was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.
- Sheridan appealed his conviction to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals, relying on Kann v. United States, reversed the conviction.
- The United States (the Government) petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 person who cashes a forged out-of-state check, thereby setting in motion its necessary interstate transportation for collection, 'cause' its transport 'with unlawful or fraudulent intent' under the National Stolen Property Act, even if the fraud is considered complete upon receiving the cash?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rutledge
Yes. A person who knowingly cashes a forged out-of-state check causes its interstate transportation with unlawful or fraudulent intent. The National Stolen Property Act's requirement of 'unlawful or fraudulent intent' is broader than the mail fraud statute's requirement that an act be 'for the purpose of executing' a fraudulent scheme, as interpreted in Kann v. United States. The interstate transportation of a forged check, which is certain to be dishonored, serves the unlawful purpose of creating a delay between the fraud and its detection, thereby giving the perpetrator time to escape. Drawing a check on an out-of-state bank is an obvious method to delay and defeat apprehension. Therefore, one who cashes such a check, knowing it must cross state lines for presentation, 'causes' that transportation with the requisite intent under the Act.
Dissenting - The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Douglas
No opinion was written for this dissent.
Analysis:
This decision distinguishes the National Stolen Property Act from the federal mail fraud statute, establishing a broader interpretation of the intent requirement for the former. By differentiating this case from Kann v. United States, the Court clarified that the prohibited interstate transportation does not need to be an essential step in obtaining the proceeds of the fraud. Instead, it is sufficient if the transportation aids the criminal's overall unlawful purpose, such as by concealing the crime or delaying detection to facilitate an escape. This holding significantly strengthens the federal government's ability to prosecute forgers who use the interstate banking system, even for small-scale, localized frauds.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Sheridan (1947)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"