While intention to defraud and deceive are crucial to a lawful conviction, when the evidence shows there was no plausible theory upon which to establish a victim, the courts simply cannot pass judgment; as was shown in this case between the alleged lover of a well-known Hollywood film star and those bent on convicting her.
Sometime in 1937, the appellant was indicted before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on charges of mail fraud as per 18 U.S.C.A. § 338, which reads in relevant part that:
“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….places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
While the charge itself was reliant upon the fact that the appellant had organised and attempted to effectuate a letter-based scheme, whereby she claimed to have given birth to a daughter in years following a romantic liaison with actor Clark Gable in England some fifteen years prior to the hearing; and so, following her subsequent conviction, she appealed against the judgment, on grounds that the allegations were in fact, false.
Heard in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court quickly established that although the letter sent was one containing very personal statements and terms of endearment toward the actor, there was no historical evidence that the intended victim had even been in the United Kingdom at the time alleged.
And so, in the first instance the court referred to Donnelly v. U.S., in which the U.S. Supreme Court had held that:
“[O]ne may not be punished for crime against the United States unless the facts shown plainly and unmistakably constitute an offense within the meaning of an act of Congress.”Donnelly v. U.S.
While also noting that in Fasulo v. U.S., the Court had again held that:
“There are no constructive offenses; and, before one can be punished, it must be shown that his case is plainly within the statute.”Fasulo v. U.S.
And so, on this occasion the court noted that although the allegations suggested a purposeful attempt to defraud and thereby obtain money from the actor, the appellant was cognisant of the futility of such a plan when at the time of writing the letter, she knew that neither one of them had physically met, never mind engaged in any form of relationship; hence, with no means upon which to properly convict, the court reversed the previous judgment in full, while reminding the litigants that:
“There can be no intent to deceive where it is known to the party making the representations that no deception can result.”