TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harris v. United States

Harris, Alias Smith, and Green v. United States

Harris v. United States, 227 U.S. 340 (1913)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 24, 1913
Docket
No. 602
Judges
McKenna
Citations
227 U.S. 34033 S. Ct. 28957 L. Ed. 5341913 U.S. LEXIS 2304
Syllabus
Hoke v. Unitpd States, ante, p. 308, followed to effect that the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 is constitutional. Bennett v. United States', ante, p. 333, followed'to effect that variances between" the indictment and proof which did not prejudice defend-. - ants as to names of women transported for immoral purposes in violation of the White .Slave Traffic Act, are not fatal. The-point of variance between indictment and proof relied on in this case not having been made in the trial court or Circuit Court of Appeals, comes too late when made in this court.
Summary
ERROI! AM) CERTIORARI,TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF.APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. The facts, which involve the constitutionality and construction of the White Slave Act and the validity of an indictment and conviction thereunder, are- stated in the opinion."

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — McKenna

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.

1916: 11924: 11928: 11936: 11945: 119162026peak 1916 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Edwards14 F. Supp. 384 (S.D. Cal. 1936)
  2. State ex rel. Knox v. Superior Oil Co.119 So. 360 (Miss. 1928) · Dissent
  3. Oesting v. United States234 F. 304 (9th Cir. 1916)
  4. Jackson v. United States297 F. 20 (8th Cir. 1924)
  5. United States v. Beach324 U.S. 193 (1945)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Beach324 U.S. 193 (1945)
  2. United States v. Edwards14 F. Supp. 384 (S.D. Cal. 1936)
  3. State ex rel. Knox v. Superior Oil Co.119 So. 360 (Miss. 1928) · Dissent
  4. Jackson v. United States297 F. 20 (8th Cir. 1924)
  5. Oesting v. United States234 F. 304 (9th Cir. 1916)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list