Copertino v. United States
| Decision Date | 27 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | 2431. |
| Citation | 256 F. 519 |
| Parties | COPERTINO et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
George E. Cutley, of Jersey City, N.J., for plaintiffs in error.
Charles F. Lynch, U.S. Atty., of Newark, N.J., and J. L. Bodine Asst. U.S. Atty., of Trenton, N.J.
Before WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge, and HAIGHT and MORRIS, District Judges.
The plaintiffs in error were convicted under an indictment which charged them with having violated an act approved on February 13, 1913 (37 Stat. 670, c. 50 (Comp. St. Secs. 8603, 8604)) in that they feloniously had in their possession certain bars of copper which had theretofore been stolen, while constituting a part of an interstate shipment of freight knowing the same to have been stolen. The government's evidence tended to prove that some time in the late afternoon or early evening of April 17, 1918, a car containing a large number of copper bars, which had been shipped from the state of Montana, destined for New York Harbor, while in transit over the lines and in the possession of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, was broken into near South Plainfield, N.J and four of the bars of copper were stolen. The theft was discovered later in the evening, and two detectives in the employ of the railroad company were detailed on the case. They arrived in the vicinity of the place where it was presumed the robbery had taken place, in the early morning of April 18th, and about 7 o'clock, after having searched for several hours, they discovered two of the stolen bars in a cemetery which was situated immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks and between them and a public highway. One of the detectives then went to South Plainfield to telephone for 'relief,' and the other one secreted himself in a car, which was standing on the tracks some 200 or 300 feet away from the cemetery, for the purpose of watching the copper. He had been there about an hour when the defendant Copertino came along the railroad tracks from the direction of South Plainfield, entered the cemetery, and immediately went to the place where the copper was located. Just before, or at about the same time that, Copertino reached the cemetery, the defendant Cucorello arrived there in an automobile. Both of them then began to load the copper in the automobile. In the meanwhile the detective who had gone to telephone returned, and he and his companion immediately proceeded to arrest the defendants. One of the defendants threw one of the bars of copper, which they had already loaded, from the automobile and attempted to drive away. Both were, however, very quickly apprehended and placed under arrest.
The defendants denied having the copper in their possession, or having attempted to take it in their possession. While they admitted being in the cemetery, they sought to explain their presence there by stating that they had driven into the cemetery because the one who was driving the car mistook the entrance to the cemetery for a public highway which they wished to take to reach the place where they intended to go. At the close of the testimony, a motion was made on behalf of the defendants that the court direct a verdict of acquittal. The ground upon which the motion was based was that even though the copper had been stolen, and the defendants had it in their possession, either actual or constructive, at the time of their arrest, as charged, still they could not be convicted of the crime for which they were indicted, because the copper had lost its character of stolen property before it came into their possession. The refusal of the court below to direct a verdict is the principal reason relied upon for a reversal of the judgment. The verdict has, of course established that the jury accepted the version of the Government's witnesses. It is claimed that the copper had lost its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Walls
...be stolen goods until they were recovered by their owner or someone for him." 231 Ala. at 61, 163 So. at 395, citing Copertino v. United States, 256 F. 519 (3d Cir.1919); People v. Jaffe, 185 N.Y. 497, 78 N.E. 169 (1906); Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47, 63-64, 19 S.Ct. 574, 580, 43 L.E......
-
U.S. v. Henneberry, s. 82-1829
...cert. denied, 411 U.S. 954, 93 S.Ct. 1931, 36 L.Ed.2d 416 (1973); United States v. Cawley, supra, 255 F.2d at 340; Copertino v. United States, 256 F. 519, 520 (3d Cir.1919). Of this long line of precedent, defendants rely primarily on United States v. Monasterski and United States v. Cawley......
-
U.S. v. Monasterski, 77-5166
...on point, each from the Third Circuit and each recognizing the validity of the above stated rule. The first case is Copertino v. United States, 256 F. 519 (3d Cir. 1919). In Copertino, railroad police discovered the theft of certain goods and found where they were hidden. They did not actua......
-
State v. Hageman
...that the ring had not, therefore, come into either the actual or constructive possession of the owner or her agent, Copertino v. United States, 256 F. 519 (3d Cir. 1919), and that the ring never lost its stolen status. Defendant, in purchasing the ring, was, therefore, receiving (not merely......