Court
District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas
Filed
Decided
Judge
Mr. Justice Shiras
Posture
Defendant found guilty under second count of indictment and sentenced to imprisonment
Defendant, Plaintiff in Error (1)
W. J. Faust (also known as W. J. Foust)
Mr. A. H. Garland, Mr. R. O. Garland, Mr. Richard H. Harrison (on brief)
v.
Defendant in Error (1)
United States
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney
Decedent / victim: United States (as owner of money-order funds)
Other parties: J. E. Foust — Postmaster at Thornton, Texas (defendant's father and employer)
Overview
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. All assignments of error are without merit, and the defendant has no just reason to complain.
Case summary
In Faust v. United States, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of W. J. Foust (indicted as W. J. Faust) for embezzling $400 in United States money-order funds while serving as assistant postmaster in Thornton, Texas. The defendant appealed on multiple grounds, including a plea of misnomer due to the spelling variance between his actual name 'Foust' and the indictment name 'Faust.' The Court held that name spelling need only preserve substantially the same sound, making the variance immaterial. The Court also affirmed the admission of a certified transcript of the postmaster's account, finding it relevant since the defendant had sole management of the funds. All other evidentiary and jury instruction challenges were rejected, with the Court finding no abuse of discretion or legal error. The decision reinforces principles of criminal procedure regarding name variances in indictments and trial court discretion in evidentiary matters.
Abstract
The Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for embezzling postal funds by an assistant postmaster, rejecting a plea of misnomer due to a minor spelling variance in the indictment as long as the name preserved substantially the same sound. The Court upheld the admission of a certified transcript of the postmaster's account as relevant given the defendant's sole management of the funds. All other challenges to evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were dismissed for lack of abuse of discretion or legal error.
Opinion of the court
Majority
opinionMr. Justice Shirasjoined by Not specified
opinionMr. Justice Shirasjoined by Not specified
- Name variance in indictment immaterial if sound substantially preserved
- Certified transcript of postmaster's account admissible against assistant postmaster
- Evidence of another person's offense properly excluded as irrelevant
- Recall of witness within trial court's discretion
- Jury charge not misleading
- No error in refusing instruction on consent element
Jurisdiction
not challengedStatutory basis
Not specified
Subject matter
Federal criminal case involving embezzlement of United States money-order funds
Jurisdictional holding
Not applicable
Jurisdictional facts
- Defendant was indicted in federal district court for embezzling federal funds
- Case involves interpretation of federal criminal procedure and evidence rules
Procedural posture
Posture at trial
Defendant found guilty under second count of indictment and sentenced to imprisonment
Posture on appeal
Direct appeal via writ of error from Supreme Court
Preserved issues
- Plea of misnomer
- Admission of certified transcript evidence
- Exclusion of evidence about another person's offense
- Recall of witness
- Jury charge objections
- Refusal to instruct on consent element
Subsequent history
Petition for rehearing
not filed
Rehearing en banc
not filed
Petition for certiorari
not filed
Remand proceedings
Not applicable
Mandate issued
Not specified
Legal categories
Criminal
Case record
Full case name
FAUST v. UNITED STATES
Docket number
687
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Trial court
District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas
Trial court judge
Not specified
Filed
Decided
Opinion author
Mr. Justice Shiras
Opinion type
published
Precedential status
precedential
Judges on panel
Mr. Justice Shiras
Issues & holdings
6
Issues raised
6
affirmed
6
Holdings
1
Whether trial court erred in overruling plea of misnomer based on variance between indictment name 'W. J. Faust' and defendant's actual name 'W. J. Foust'
affirmed
Standard of review
De novo
Disposition rationale
Name need not be correctly spelled if substantially same sound preserved; variance not material
Preservation
Issue preserved for review
2
Whether trial court erred in admitting certified transcript from Auditor of Treasury showing account of postmaster J. E. Foust
affirmed
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion
Disposition rationale
Transcript admissible since defendant as assistant postmaster had sole management of money-order funds
Preservation
Issue preserved for review
3
Whether trial court erred in excluding evidence that another person committed different offense at earlier time and was convicted
affirmed
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion
Disposition rationale
Evidence properly rejected as irrelevant and immaterial
Preservation
Issue preserved for review
4
Whether trial court erred in refusing to recall witness to change statements made on cross-examination
affirmed
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion
Disposition rationale
Matter within discretion of trial court
Preservation
Issue preserved for review
5
Whether jury charge as a whole was misleading and took vital issues from jury
affirmed
Standard of review
De novo
Disposition rationale
Charge not misleading; jury explicitly told they were judges of evidence and weight
Preservation
Issue preserved for review
6
Whether trial court erred in refusing to charge that embezzlement must be proved without consent of principal/employer
affirmed
Standard of review
De novo
Disposition rationale
No merit; defendant's responsibility was to government, not just postmaster employer
Preservation
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Name variance in indictment
Name need not be correctly spelled in indictment if substantially same sound preserved; variance between 'Faust' and 'Foust' not material
Follows precedent where similar variances held immaterial; substantial similarity of sound suffices
unanimousbinding precedent
Admissibility of certified transcript of postmaster's account
Certified transcript from Auditor of Treasury showing postmaster's account admissible against assistant postmaster
Defendant as assistant postmaster had sole management of money-order funds; transcript relevant to prove embezzlement
unanimousbinding precedent
Exclusion of evidence about another person's offense
Evidence that another person committed different offense at earlier time properly excluded
Irrelevant and immaterial to defendant's guilt
unanimousbinding precedent
Recall of witness
Refusal to recall witness to change cross-examination statements within trial court's discretion
Matter of trial management discretionary with court
unanimousbinding precedent
Jury charge
Charge not misleading and did not improperly take issues from jury
Charge explicitly told jury they were judges of evidence and weight; no misdirection
unanimousbinding precedent
Jury instruction on consent element
No error in refusing to charge that embezzlement must be without consent of principal/employer
Defendant's responsibility was to government, not just postmaster employer; indictment sufficient
unanimousbinding precedent
Error analysis
- Overruling plea of misnomer due to name variance between 'Faust' and 'Foust' — procedural · no error foundNot applicable · not applicable
- Admitting certified transcript of postmaster's account — evidentiary · no error foundNot applicable · not applicable
- Excluding evidence about another person's prior offense — evidentiary · no error foundNot applicable · not applicable
- Refusing to recall witness to change cross-examination statements — procedural · no error foundNot applicable · not applicable
- Jury charge allegedly misleading and taking issues from jury — jury instruction · no error foundNot applicable · not applicable
- Refusing to instruct that embezzlement must be without consent of principal/employer — jury instruction · no error foundNot applicable · not applicable
Burden of proof
Prosecution burden
Beyond a reasonable doubt
Defence burden
Not specified
Burden met
true
Standards of review
- Plea of misnomer and jury charge objections — de novo Legal issues reviewed de novo
- Evidentiary rulings and witness recall — abuse of discretion Trial court discretion in evidentiary matters and witness management
Timeline
Procedural path
Indictment filedTrial heldGuilty verdictSentence imposedWrit of errorJudgment affirmed
5
Events
886
Days, incident to ruling
—
Span
filingcited in opinion
Indictment filed against W. J. Faust for feloniously embezzling money-order funds of the United States
Outcome: Indictment issued
Initiates criminal prosecution for embezzlement of federal funds
Plea of misnomer regarding name variance
trial eventcited in opinion
Trial held, defendant found guilty under second count of indictment alleging embezzlement of $400 on April 6, 1893
Outcome: Guilty verdict
Defendant convicted of federal embezzlement
All evidentiary and jury instruction issues
procedural eventcited in opinion
Defendant sentenced to imprisonment in penitentiary after guilty verdict
Outcome: Sentence imposed
Final judgment from which appeal taken
appeal eventcited in opinion
Case submitted to Supreme Court on writ of error
Outcome: Case under review
Appellate review begins
All assignments of error
appeal eventcited in opinion
Supreme Court delivers opinion affirming trial court judgment
Outcome: Judgment affirmed
Final disposition of appeal
All issues resolved
Facts & evidence
Incident
Date
Location
Thornton, Limestone County, Texas
Key facts
5 facts- Defendant W. J. Foust (indicted as W. J. Faust) served as assistant postmaster at Thornton, Texas
- He was son and assistant to principal postmaster J. E. Foust
- Defendant had sole management and possession of money-order business and funds
- Indicted for feloniously embezzling $400 in money-order funds of the United States on April 6, 1893
- Certified transcript showed postmaster account balance due of $744.18 from October 10, 1891 to May 20, 1893
Disputed questions
- Whether variance between name 'Faust' in indictment and defendant's actual name 'Foust' was material
- Whether certified transcript of postmaster's account was admissible against assistant postmaster
- Whether evidence about another person's prior offense was relevant
- Whether jury charge properly addressed elements of embezzlement
Procedural history
6 steps- December 21, 1893: Indictment filed
- April 18, 1895: Trial and guilty verdict under second count
- Defendant filed plea of misnomer claiming name was W. J. Foust not W. J. Faust
- Plea overruled, defendant declined to suggest proper name for insertion in indictment
- Various evidentiary and jury instruction objections made at trial
- Defendant sentenced to imprisonment and obtained writ of error to Supreme Court
Evidence in the record
Direct
- Testimony that defendant was assistant postmaster with sole management of money-order funds
Testimonial
- Witness testimony about defendant's role and management of funds
Documentary
- Certified transcript from Auditor of Treasury
- Indictment
Circumstantial
- Certified transcript showing postmaster account balance due of $744.18
Challenged
- Evidence type: Certified transcript from Auditor of Treasury · Challenge basis: Relevance and authentication · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Defendant had sole management of funds; transcript relevant to prove embezzlement · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed
- Evidence type: Evidence about another person's prior offense · Challenge basis: Relevance · Trial court ruling: excluded · Reasoning: Irrelevant and immaterial to defendant's guilt · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed
Excluded
- Evidence type: Evidence that another person committed different offense and was convicted · Exclusion basis: Irrelevant and immaterial
Jury
Jury selection issues
Not specified
Voir dire process
Not specified
Jury composition
Not specified
Verdict
Guilty under second count of indictment
Verdict date
1895-04-18
Deliberation time
Not specified
Jury questions
Not specified
Jury instructions given
- Jury explicitly told they were judges of what the evidence was and of its weight
Jury instructions requested
- Instruction that embezzlement must be proved without consent of principal/employer
Jury instructions challenged
- [object Object]
Sentencing
Sentence imposed
Imprisonment in penitentiary
Sentence type
discretionary
Sentencing date
1895-04-18
Sentencing guidelines range
Not applicable
Departures or variances
Not specified
Restitution ordered
Not specified
Fines ordered
Not specified
Supervised release
Not applicable
Sentence challenged on appeal
false
Objects of relevance
Money-order funds of the United StatesCertified transcript document from Treasury
Policy considerations
- Efficiency in criminal procedure regarding minor name variances
- Trial court discretion in evidentiary and witness management
Authorities
Cited authorities (6)
39 Penn. St. 429
followedprecedentCited as precedent where variance between names Bubb and Bopp held immaterial
88 Penn. St. 120
followedprecedentCited as precedent where variance between names Heckman and Hackman held immaterial
7 Missouri, 147
followedprecedentCited as precedent where variance between names Hutson and Hudson held immaterial
29 Kansas, 337
followedprecedentCited as precedent where variance between names Shaffer and Shafer held immaterial
21 Arkansas, 462
followedprecedentCited as precedent where variance between names Woolley and Wolley held immaterial
14 Maryland, 121
followedprecedentCited as precedent where variance between names Penryn and Pennyrine held immaterial
Related cases (6)
39 Penn. St. 429
precedentVariance between names Bubb and Bopp held immaterial
88 Penn. St. 120
precedentVariance between names Heckman and Hackman held immaterial
7 Missouri, 147
precedentVariance between names Hutson and Hudson held immaterial
29 Kansas, 337
precedentVariance between names Shaffer and Shafer held immaterial
21 Arkansas, 462
precedentVariance between names Woolley and Wolley held immaterial
14 Maryland, 121
precedentVariance between names Penryn and Pennyrine held immaterial
Standards & doctrines
- Substantial similarity of sound doctrine for name variances
- Trial court discretion in witness recall and evidentiary rulings
Legal principles applied
- Name need not be correctly spelled in indictment if substantially same sound preserved
- Evidence must be relevant and material to be admissible
Notable quotes
“A name need not be correctly spelled in an indictment, if substantially the same sound is preserved.”Mr. Justice Shiras — Addressing plea of misnomer based on variance between 'Faust' and 'Foust'Establishes legal standard for name variances in criminal indictments
“The jury were explicitly told that they were the judges of what the evidence was and of its weight.”Mr. Justice Shiras — Rejecting challenge to jury charge as misleadingConfirms proper instruction on jury's role in evaluating evidence
Index terms85
Summary terms
Legal mechanisms
Various actions
Various actors
Legal concepts
Legal outcomes
Legal issues
Legal procedures
Legal remedies
Legal evidence
Legal arguments
Legal defenses
Legal penalties
Legal procedural steps
Geo locations
Judges
Attorneys
Procedural terms
Substantive offenses
Entities and documentation
Legal actions
Action type
affirmed
Target
trial court judgment of conviction and sentence
Appealed from
District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas
Citation
Not specified
Context
Supreme Court affirms all rulings of trial court, finding no error in plea of misnomer, evidentiary decisions, or jury instructions
Scope
full
Further instructions
None
Disposition vote
unanimous
Search facets
Parties
Judges
Shiras
Courts
Locations
Practice areas
Other index terms