Harris v. United States
Harris, Alias Smith, and Green v. United States
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court.
Indictment under the act, of June 25, -1910. It contains three counts charging defendants (we shall so call plaintiffs *341 in error and petitioners) with transporting and causing to be transported in interstate commerce certain named women, for the purpose of prostitution.
After a demurrer to the indictment was overruled and trial upon the plea of not guilty, defendants were convicted, and’defendant Harris was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and defendant Gréen for one year, both to pay costs of prosecution, and judgment was entered accordingly. The judgment was affirmed , by the Circuit Court of . Appeals. 194 Fed. Rep. 634.
The. question of the constitutionality of the law was raised as in the cases which we have just decided, and nothing need.be added to the opinion expressed in No. 381, Hoke v. United States, ante, p. 308, and we will pass' to the errors assigned.
It is contended that there is a. variance between the allegations and proof, in that the women .transported were named in the indictment as Nellie Stover and Stella Larkins and that the proof shows the latter’s name was Estelle Bowles and the right name of Nellie Stover was Myrtie Watson. The point was not made either in the .trial court or in the Court-of Appeals. It comes, therefore, too late. But see, however, the opinion -in No. 603, Bennett v. United States, ante, p. 333.
The úéxt point made by defendants is that defendant Harris was entitled 'to an acquittal because of the insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdiet of guilty. In passing on this contention the Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence and .added its judgment of. its suffi-. ciency to that of the jury. We refer'to the opinion of the court and concur in its comment and conclusion.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.