Nathaniel Walter Dunson v. United States

Appellant contends that the indictment under which he was convicted fails to state an offense.

The indictment, drawn under 18 U.S.C. § 659 , charges that appellant, knowing the property was stolen, had possession of a television set “stolen * * * from an interstate shipment of freight moving from Chicago, Illinois, to Oakland, California.”

Appellant argues that the statute applies only if the property was stolen from one of the places or facilities specifically listed in the statute, and therefore the indictment fails to allege an essential element of the offense.

An indictment was held invalid on this ground in United States v. Manuszak, 234 F.2d 421 (3d Cir. 1956). The contrary result was reached in United States v. Wora, 246 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1957). In the latter case the court reasoned that the words “ ‘stolen from an interstate shipment of freight’ fairly implied that the theft was from an instrumentality of interstate commerce,” and it was the reasonable intendment of this language that the theft was from one of the enumerated facilities since section 659 lists aU such instrumentalities capable of carrying freight of the kind involved. If the defendant required greater…