Masters v. United States

Citations

• 42 App. D.C. 350
• 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2288

Syllabus

<p>Juey; Trial by; Directed Verdict; Criminal Law; Intent; Embezzlement; Evidence; Character; Financial Standing; Custom.</p> <p>1. In view of the constitutional guaranty of the right of persons charged with crime to trial by jury, it is beyond the power of a court, either directly or indirectly, to instruct a jury to return a verdict of guilty in a criminal case.</p> <p>2. A direction of a verdict of guilty, in violation of the constitutional guaranty of the right of persons charged with crime to trial by jury, is contained in a cliargo that the evidence against the accused is practically undisputed, and that the law is such that, in such a case, the jury should render a verdict of guilty, although it is prefaced with the statement that the court cannot order a verdict in a criminal case, and that the jury must itself return the verdict, taking the law from the court.</p> <p>3. Where an act is by statute made a crime, the statute is to be construed in the light of the common law, and the existence of a criminal intent is essential.</p> <p>4. While it is undoubtedly within the power of the legislature to declare an act criminal, irrespective of the intent with which it is done, a statute will not be construed to have that effect, unless it clearly appears that such is the legislative intent.</p> <p>5. Where the lawmakers have incorporated into a penal statute words descriptive of the crime which imply the necessity of “a mind at fault before there can be a crime,” criminal intent becomes an essential fact in establishing' the guilt of a person accused of its violation.</p> <p>6. Intentáis an essential element of the crime of embezzlement under sec. 834, Code D. C. (31 Stat. at L. 1325, chap. 854), making guilty of that oil'ense every officer or agent of a corporation who “wrongfully” converts to his own use anything of value coming into his possession by virtue of his employment, since intent is implied in the word “wrongfully.” (Distinguishing O’Brien v. United Sta