Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialtestimonypiracy

appealtrialtestimonybeyond a reasonable doubtappellant

Related Cases

Tedesco v. U.S., 118 F.2d 737

Facts

On April 11, 1940, Charles Tedesco received a collect call from Anne Baker, a prostitute, who requested to return to Portland from Seattle. Tedesco arranged for Frank Petrone to pick her up, providing him with the necessary details. Petrone drove to Seattle, picked up Baker, and returned to Portland, where Tedesco instructed Petrone to take Baker to a house of prostitution in The Dalles, Oregon. The prosecution introduced testimony from another prostitute, Donna Bates, to establish Tedesco's intent regarding the transportation of Baker.

At about the hour of 6:45 p;m; on April 11, 1940, the appellant, a resident in the Palace Hotel in Portland, Oregon, accepted a ‘collect‘ telephone call originating in Seattle, Washington, from a person named ‘Kay,‘ identified as Miss Anne Baker, who was the principal witness in this case.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of witness Bates and whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant submission of the case to the jury.

The questions involved on this appeal are: (1) Whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of witness Bates; and (2) whether there was sufficient substantial evidence to warrant submission of the case to the jury on either count of the indictment.

Rule

The general rule of criminal evidence states that proof of a distinct, independent offense is inadmissible, but there is an exception for evidence of other acts that illustrate or establish intent or motive in the act directly in judgment.

It is a general rule of criminal evidence that on the trial of a person accused of crime proof of a distinct, independent offense is inadmissible. The general rule, however, is modified by a well-recognized exception thereto, which has the sanction of the best law writers, both judicial and academic.

Analysis

The court found that the testimony of Donna Bates was relevant to establish Tedesco's intent regarding the transportation of Anne Baker. The court noted that the similarity of the events surrounding Bates' and Baker's situations justified the admission of her testimony. The jury was instructed to consider Bates' testimony solely for the purpose of determining Tedesco's intent, not to prove the commission of another offense.

In this connection, commenting on situations such as we have here, Dean Wigmore (on Evidence, 2d Ed., vol. 1, Sec. 302, p. 615), had this to say: ‘* * * it is at least necessary that prior acts should be similar. * * * (Examples illustrated.)‘

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt on both counts of the indictment.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Who won?

United States; the court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of Tedesco for conspiracy and transportation for prostitution.

The uncontradicted evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Baker girl was transported from the state of Washington, where she was practicing prostitution, to the state of Oregon, where she practiced prostitution; that Tedesco procured Frank Petrone to furnish the transportation; that Tedesco instructed Petrone to deliver Miss Baker to a house of prostitution.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

United States v. Nicholas, 686 Fed.Appx. 570

Bean v. State, 264 So.3d 947, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D219

In re Marriage of Rolfe, 216 Mont. 39, 699 P.2d 79

Chin v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 685 F.3d 135, 115 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 720, 95 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,555

Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 104 S.Ct. 2820, 81 L.Ed.2d 758