Graham v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1951 · Criminal Law

187 F.2d 87 (1951)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawfalse pretenseslarceny by tricklarcenyspecial purpose transferfraudconversionintent at time of receipt

Facts

Francisco Gal consulted appellant, an attorney, after Gal's arrest for disorderly conduct and feared the arrest would affect his effort to obtain American citizenship. Gal testified that appellant said he would charge $200 as a legal fee and that Gal would have to pay an additional $2,000 for the police, telling him not to mention the money to anyone. Gal then paid appellant $300, of which $200 was for the legal fee, and later paid $1,900 more. The arresting officer testified that appellant never offered or gave him any money, and appellant admitted he kept all of the money, though he claimed it was entirely a fee for legal services.

Issue

Whether the evidence permitted the jury to find larceny by trick where Gal gave appellant money allegedly to be used to bribe the police, but appellant intended from the outset to keep it. Whether the trial court's instructions were adequate without a technical explanation of title, possession, and custody.

Rule

Under D.C. larceny law, one who obtains money from another upon the representation that he will use it to perform a particular service or special purpose for the owner, while intending at the time to convert the money to his own use and actually doing so, is guilty of larceny by trick. The relevant common-law distinction is between money delivered for a special purpose, where title does not pass, and money the owner intends to transfer outright to the wrongdoer.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Baltimore, Nora Kim told Luis Ortega that for $4,500 she would pay certain zoning inspectors so his food stall permit problem would disappear. Luis gave her the money only for that purpose. Nora had already decided she would keep the money, and she spent it on her rent and credit-card bills.

If these facts are proved, which is the strongest basis for a larceny conviction?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that larceny by trick exists when the defendant obtains money upon a representation that it will be used for a particular service or special purpose for the owner, intends at that time to convert it, and does convert it. Because Luis entrusted the money for a specific purpose rather than as an outright payment to Nora, title did not pass in the sense relevant to this doctrine. Actual corruption of inspectors is unnecessary, and voluntary delivery does not defeat larceny where the delivery was for a special purpose.