Brumbelow v. United States, 7358
| Citation | 323 F.2d 703 |
| Decision Date | 21 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | 7359.,No. 7358,7358 |
| Parties | Charles BRUMBELOW, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Syble Hair BRUMBELOW, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Stanley J. Walter, Lakewood, Colo., for appellants.
E. C. Nelson, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Edwin Langley, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS, HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.
The appellants Brumbelow, who are husband and wife, were indicted in a single indictment, and were convicted by a jury of fraudulently and knowingly concealing and facilitating the transportation and concealment of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174. Their motions for acquittal and for new trial were denied. They have appealed and urge that there was insufficient evidence to sustain their convictions.
The narcotics came into the possession of the federal agents, and they had their first knowledge of them when Thomas Hair and John Ferrell sold the heroin to them in Oklahoma City. These two individuals were witnesses for the Government in the trial of this case, and they stated they had removed the narcotics from a glove compartment of a 1958 Ford car which was the property of the appellants. Witness Hair is the brother of the appellant, Syble Hair Brumbelow, and he and his wife lived in the same community as appellants. He testified at the trial that his wife, his sister, and he had driven appellants' car to a well near Clemscott, Oklahoma, to get water, and while at the well Hair opened the glove compartment with a fingernail file and the narcotics were there in a camera box. He testified that he had previously stolen the narcotics from a car in Ardmore, Oklahoma, and placed them in the glove compartment of appellants' car. The evidence shows that Hair and the witness Ferrell removed the narcotics from the car, hid them in several places, and sold them to the narcotics agents. The record shows that the witness Hair was permitted to drive this car of the appellants, and that he had free access to and use of it. The record shows that he was using it at the time as much or more than were the appellants. The car was wired in such a way that it could be operated with or without an ignition key. There is no evidence as to where the car was usually kept nor whether other persons had access to it, other than those who drove it and witness Hair's wife and sister. There was likewise no testimony as to whether the car doors or the glove compartment were locked. Witness Hair said he opened the glove compartment with a fingernail file, but the record does not show whether it was locked or not, but we assume it was. The narcotics, while in the glove compartment of the car, were in glass vials in a camera box. The record shows that the appellant, Syble Brumbelow, asked her sister whether she had seen a camera box in the car, but there was no other testimony on this point. This testimony related only to appellant, Syble Brumbelow, although the other appellant was present when the inquiry was made. The appellant, Charles Brumbelow, testified a search had been made for a box of receipts which had been in the car. It was established that appellant, Charles Brumbelow, had returned from Army duty in Korea shortly before the narcotics were sold by the witnesses Hair and Ferrell. The chemist for the Government testified that the narcotics in question were of the Asiatic type. The Government attempted to impeach the witness Hair as to his statements that he had stolen the narcotics in Ardmore by statements he had previously made that he saw the camera box in the glove compartment, thought it was his mother's, opened it and found small glass vials containing a white powder. The testimony used for impeachment was an agent's recollection of the contents of a written statement made by Hair.
The case of the Government, as indicated above, was based on the testimony that the narcotics had at one time been located in the glove compartment of an automobile that was owned by the appellants; upon the testimony that the appellant, Syble Brumbelow, had inquired as to whether a camera box had been seen in the car; upon the evidence that appellant, Charles Brumbelow, had recently returned from Korea where narcotics were available; and that the narcotics were of the Asiatic type.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Hooks
...U.S. 993, 92 S.Ct. 541, 30 L.Ed.2d 545 (1971); Lewis v. United States, 420 F.2d 1089, 1089-90 (10th Cir.1970); Brumbelow v. United States, 323 F.2d 703, 705 (10th Cir.1963); Tyler v. United States, 323 F.2d 711, 712 (10th Cir.1963). The use of this language is unfortunate for it suggests th......
-
State v. Edwards
...377, 49 A.L.R.2d 449 (speeding); Erwing v. United States (9 Cir.) 323 F.2d 674 (possession of cocaine hydrochloride); Brumbelow v. United States (10 Cir.) 323 F.2d 703 (possession of heroin in glove compartment in defendant's automobile could not support conviction under statutory presumpti......
-
U.S. v. Montgomery
...See United States v. Ferg, 504 F.2d 914 (5th Cir. 1974); Lewis v. United States, 420 F.2d 1089 (10th Cir. 1970); Brumbelow v. United States, 323 F.2d 703 (10th Cir. 1963). The case of Lewis is relied on. There the conviction was for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, and t......
-
United States v. Lopez
...Cir. 1965); United States v. Rivera, 346 F.2d 942, 943 (2d Cir. 1965). But cf. Lucero v. United States, supra; Brumbelow v. United States, 323 F.2d 703, 705 (10th Cir. 1963); Orozco-Vasquez v. United States, 344 F.2d 827, 829 (9th Cir. 1965). Much is made by Lopez of the agent's repeated us......
-
Defending Colorado Drug Cases
...p. 220. 50. Johns v. People, 497 P.2d 1253 (Colo. 1972); Feltes v. People, 498 P.2d 1128 (Colo. 1972). 51. See United States v. Brumbelow, 323 F.2d 703 (10th Cir. 1963); United States v. Bethea, 442 F.2d 790 (D.C. Cir. 1971). 52. Compare Ramsey v. People, 498 P.2d 1148 (Colo. 1972); People ......