Spurr v. United States
174 U.S. 728 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
Facts
The defendant, a bank officer, certified checks for Dobbins and Dazey, even though their account was overdrawn at the time. The defendant's defense was that he had no actual knowledge of the insufficient funds and believed the account had sufficient funds. This belief was founded on information he received from the cashier or exchange clerk, whom he consulted before each certification. He claimed he honestly relied on that information and had the right to do so.
Procedural history
The case originated in the Circuit Court, which rendered a verdict. The judgment of the Circuit Court was subsequently appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals. This Court reviewed the decisions of both the Circuit Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court, ultimately reversing both judgments and remanding the case to the Circuit Court with directions to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.
Issue
Did the lower court err by failing to adequately instruct the jury on the meaning of "wilful violation" as required for a criminal offense under Section 13 of the Act of 1882? Specifically, was it error to omit this explanation when the jury explicitly requested clarification on the law regarding certification of checks with insufficient funds?
Holding
Yes, the lower court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury on the "wilful" element of the criminal offense. The judgments of the Circuit Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.
Rule
For a bank officer to be criminally liable for certifying checks with insufficient funds under Section 13 of the Act of 1882, the violation must be "wilful." "Wilful" implies knowledge and a purpose to do wrong, requiring something more than merely certifying in excess of deposits in ignorance or without intent to evade the law. It signifies a bad purpose or evil intent without justifiable excuse, and wrongful intent is the essence of the crime. Such intent can be imputed if an officer purposely keeps himself in ignorance of account balances or is grossly indifferent to his duty to ascertain facts. The jury must be clearly instructed on this "wilful" element, as mere false certification is not automatically a criminal offense.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.