United States v. Pritchard , 86 F. App'x 387 ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 23 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 03-1155
(Colorado)
DONALD PRITCHARD, (D.Ct. No. 01-CR-288-D)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Mr. Donald Pritchard stands convicted of eight counts of wire fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. He appeals, claiming a fatal variance between the
proof adduced at trial and the conduct charged in the indictment. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Background
Pritchard was in the business of brokering sales of aircraft and aircraft
parts. The indictment charged him with wire fraud in connection with agreements
he made with six different individuals. 1 The evidence adduced at trial, however,
was that five of the agreements were with corporations, which were only
represented by the named individuals. Furthermore, in three of the transactions
(Counts One, Two and Three) the indictment charged Pritchard with claiming to
own the aircraft or parts he was offering for sale, 2 but the evidence at trial was
that he only offered to secure the aircraft or parts from third parties. Based on
these alleged variances between the proof at trial and the conduct charged in the
indictment, Pritchard moved at the close of the Government’s case for judgment
of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. The Government conceded the variances
1
The gist of the indictment was that Pritchard solicited and received
payment for aircraft or aircraft parts and subsequently failed to deliver same as
agreed or refund monies paid.
2
For purposes of this appeal, we generously construe Count Three of the
indictment, as urged by Pritchard, to allege he agreed to sell an aircraft he owned.
It is by no means clear the language of the indictment is so constrained.
-2-
but argued they were harmless. 3 The district court agreed and denied the motion
for judgment of acquittal.
Pritchard contends the described variances were fatal and require reversal
of his convictions. We review de novo a ruling on a motion for judgment of
acquittal. United States v. McKissick, 204 F.3d 1282, 1290 (10th Cir. 2000). In
particular, we consider whether a variance between proof at trial and conduct
charged in the indictment is fatal and reversible. United States v. Williamson, 53
F.3d 1500, 1512 (10th Cir.), cert. denied sub. nom, 516 U.S. 882 (1995).
Discussion
Variances between conduct charged in an indictment and proof at trial are
of three kinds: harmless, fatal and fatal per se. Hunter v. New Mexico, 916 F.2d
595, 598-99 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub. nom, 500 U.S. 909 (1991). We
consider such variances against the constitutional backdrop of the Sixth
Amendment (requiring notice of the charge) and, in the case of federal
prosecutions, the Fifth Amendment (right to indictment by grand jury). Id. at 598.
At one end of the spectrum is the simple variance which occurs “when the
charging terms are unchanged, but the evidence at trial proves facts materially
different from those alleged in the indictment.” Id. (citation and quotation
3
Although the Government qualified several of its concessions in the
district court, we treat the concessions as complete for purposes of disposing of
this appeal.
-3-
omitted). 4 To this kind of variance we apply harmless error analysis. Id.“[C]onvictions generally have been sustained as long as the proof upon which
they are based corresponds to an offense that was clearly set out in the
indictment.” Id. at 599 (quoting United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 136
(1985)). Along the spectrum a variance becomes fatal and reversible “when the
defendant is prejudiced in his defense because he cannot anticipate from the
indictment what evidence will be presented against him or is exposed to the risk
of double jeopardy.” Id. (citations omitted). The antipode of harmlessness is
where a variance is so severe that it constructively amends the indictment by
altering an element and thus enables conviction for conduct not charged.
Variances of this type are unquestionably fatal and reversible per se. Id.Although Pritchard claims the described variances were fatal, he does not
explicitly claim they were fatal per se. 5 In any event, it does not appear they are
fatal at all.
The gravamen (indeed, the elements) of each offense as charged in the
indictment was that Pritchard:
We assume, without deciding, that the variances identified in this case are
4
material.
As to the variances related to Counts One, Two and Three, Pritchard
5
claims he was prejudiced in the preparation of his defense. (Appellant’s Br. at
13.) As to the remaining counts, he simply claims the evidence at trial varied
from the conduct charged in the indictment and, as a result, he was denied his
constitutional right to notice of the charges against him. (Id. at 16.)
-4-
1) devised and intended to devise a scheme
a) to defraud, and
b) to obtain money by means of materially false and fraudulent
pretenses and representations, and
2) in furtherance of the scheme, induced wire transfers of money to his
account. 6
(R. Vol. I at Doc. 1).
Allegations in the indictment as to the means by which Pritchard carried out
his scheme (i.e., whether by claiming to own the property he offered for sale or to
broker it for another) are surplusage. “A part of the indictment unnecessary to
and independent of the allegations of the offense proved may normally be treated
6
Instruction No. 19 tracks the essential elements of the offense charged in
the indictment. Notably absent is any reference to whether Pritchard held himself
out as owning or brokering the property subject to sale or whether the victims
were corporations or individuals. (R. Vol. I at Doc. 65.)
Instruction No. 18 quotes, in pertinent part, the statute under which
Pritchard was charged:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or
artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of
false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, (and)
transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of a wire, radio or
television communication in interstate . . . commerce, any writings,
signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such
scheme or artifice . . . [.]
(Id.) (parenthetical & ellipsis in original); 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
-5-
as a useless averment that may be ignored.” Miller, 471 U.S. at 136 (quotations
omitted). 7 See also United States v. Smith, 838 F.2d 436, 439 (10th Cir. 1988)
(“proof is not required of everything alleged in the indictment”), cert. denied, 490
U.S. 1036 (1989); United States v. Harper, 579 F.2d 1235, 1239 (10th Cir.)
(“When the language of the indictment goes beyond alleging the elements of the
offense, it is mere surplusage and such surplusage need not be proved.”), cert.
denied, 439 U.S. 968 (1978). This being so, it follows, a fortiori, that variation in
the proof at trial of the means employed to carry out the scheme to defraud is not
generally fatal.
So, too, with allegations in the indictment as to the victims of Pritchard’s
scheme. The charged offense does not require an identified victim as an element.
Cf. Harper at 1235 (“Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific person is
the principal is not an element of the crime of aiding and abetting. It is not even
essential that the identity of the principal be established. The prosecution only
need prove that the offense has been committed.”) (citations omitted). It
7
We distinguish United States v. Adams, 778 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1985), a
case Pritchard cites. In Adams, the Fifth Circuit held that proof of false address
and false name presented in a firearm purchase prosecution impermissibly
broadened an indictment that charged only furnishing a false name as the basis of
the crime. Id. at 1124. Here, the basis of the crime is a scheme to defraud by
inducing wire transfer of monies in exchange for property. Whether Pritchard
held himself out as the owner or broker of the property for sale does not alter the
gravamen of the offense. For like reasons, Adams is inapposite to variances in
proof of the victims.
-6-
therefore follows that variation between the victim named in the indictment and
that proved at trial, particularly when the variation is of the marginal sort
presented here, is likewise harmless.
Pritchard alternatively claims the described variances prejudiced him in the
preparation of his defense (Counts One, Two and Three) and deprived him of
notice of the charges against him (Counts Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight).
However, he provides no basis for these claims. Indeed, it is difficult to identify
prejudice or lack of notice when Pritchard was alerted to the variances in
discovery. (R. Vol. V at 541.) Since he does not claim exposure to the risk of
double jeopardy, we need not discuss its effect.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
Entered by the Court:
TERRENCE L. O’BRIEN
United States Circuit Judge
-7-