380 F.2d 19 (5th Cir. 1967), 23598, Hackworth v. United States

Docket Nº:23598.
Citation:380 F.2d 19
Party Name:Harry Edison HACKWORTH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Case Date:July 05, 1967
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Page 19

380 F.2d 19 (5th Cir. 1967)

Harry Edison HACKWORTH, Appellant,


UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23598.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 5, 1967

Page 20

Paul Frederick Rotherstein, Joel J. Finer, University of Texas, Austin, Tex., for appellant.

Robert S. Travis, Asst. U.S. Atty., Melvin M. Diggs, U.S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.

Before BELL and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges, and NOEL, District Judge.


Appellant was convicted of knowingly possessing stolen mail in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. Section 1708 (Count I); falsely altering a United States Treasury check in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. Section 495 (Count II); and fraudulently publishing the altered check in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. Section 495 (Count III).

Upon careful consideration of appellant's four-pronged attack upon this conviction, it is clear that he cannot prevail.

Appellant's first asserted point of error that the trial court erred by submitting the presumption of sanity to the jury is without merit. Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895).

His second asserted point of error that, as a matter of law, the evidence was insufficient under Count I of the indictment to go to the jury is likewise without merit. Smith v. United States, 343 F.2d 539 (5th Cir. 1965); Stevens v. United States, 306 F.2d 834 (5th Cir. 1962). Cf. Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 at page 115, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115 (1959).

The trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on its own motion that certain evidence was to be considered for limited purposes only. Richards v. United States, 329 F.2d 188 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 854, 85 S.Ct. 102, 13 L.Ed.2d 57. As in Richards, neither was such instruction requested nor was there objection because it was not given.

The trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the test of criminal responsibility adhered to by the Fifth Circuit. Howard v. United States, 232 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1956); Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373, 17 S.Ct. 360, 41 L.Ed. 750 (1897).

The judgment is affirmed.

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge (specially concurring):

I concur in the result. As to the first asserted point of error my views are different from those of my brothers.

The court gave a charge requested by the...

To continue reading