Pereira v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1954 · Evidence

347 U.S. 1 (1954)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceMail FraudInterstate Transportation of Stolen PropertyConspiracyMarital Communications PrivilegeAiding and Abettingcausing the mails to be usedreasonable foreseeability

Facts

Pereira and Brading carried out a confidence scheme to defraud Mrs. Joyce through false representations about Pereira's divorce, property settlement, oil deals, and a fictitious hotel purchase. After marrying Mrs. Joyce, Pereira obtained from her a $35,000 check drawn on a Los Angeles bank and delivered it to an El Paso bank for collection; after the check cleared, Pereira and Brading fled with the proceeds and a Cadillac. At trial, Mrs. Joyce testified about statements and events involving Pereira, many of which occurred in the presence of Brading or her half-sister, or before the marriage. Petitioners argued that her testimony was privileged and that there was insufficient evidence of mailing, interstate transportation, conspiracy, and separate punishable offenses.

Issue

Whether Mrs. Joyce's testimony was barred by the privilege for confidential marital communications, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for mail fraud, interstate transportation of property obtained by fraud, and conspiracy without violating double jeopardy. Also at issue was whether petitioners caused the mailing and interstate transportation even though they did not personally mail or transport the check themselves.

Rule

The privilege for confidential marital communications does not apply when the circumstances show the communications were not intended to be private, including when made in the presence of third parties; the privilege generally extends to utterances, not acts. For mail fraud, the elements are (1) a scheme to defraud and (2) a mailing for the purpose of executing the scheme, and a person causes the mails to be used when he acts with knowledge that mail use will follow in the ordinary course of business or when such use is reasonably foreseeable, even if not actually intended. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2314, a person violates the statute by knowingly transporting, or causing to be transported, in interstate commerce property worth $5,000 or more that has been stolen, converted, or taken by fraud. Aiding and abetting makes one liable as a principal, and conspiracy is a separate offense from the substantive crimes so long as each requires proof of a fact the other does not.

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 Phoenix, Nolan Price induced Vera Kim to invest in a sham resort project and obtained her $18,000 check drawn on a bank in Portland, Oregon. Nolan took the check to a Phoenix bank for collection, and the bank sent it through ordinary banking channels to Oregon.

If Nolan is charged with mail fraud, which is the strongest basis for finding that he caused the mails to be used?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a defendant causes use of the mails when he does an act with knowledge that mail use will follow in the ordinary course of business, or when such use is reasonably foreseeable, even if not actually intended. Delivering an out-of-state check to a local bank for collection satisfies that standard. Personal mailing is unnecessary, and the scheme need not make mailing an express or essential feature so long as the mailing is for the purpose of executing the scheme.