Felton v. United States, 8027.
| Citation | 344 F.2d 111 |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 8027.,8027. |
| Parties | William Harrison FELTON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Jerry R. Dunn, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., and Guy L. Goodwin, Asst. U. S. Atty., District of Kansas, were on the brief), for appellee.
Before PICKETT, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.
This is a direct appeal from a sentence imposed after a jury verdict finding appellant Felton guilty of possessing a county warrant stolen from an authorized mail depository in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708.
Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. The elements of the crime are the possession of mail matter stolen from an authorized depository for mail with knowledge that such matter was stolen. A deputy county clerk testified as to the issuance of the warrant and its insertion into a window envelope showing the address of one English at 104 South Emporia, Wichita, Kansas. He described the procedure for stamping and mailing but did not personally perform either operation. He said that the warrant was probably mailed June 30, 1964. A mail carrier testified that 104 South Emporia was the Bower Hotel and that he placed the mail in a wire basket at the lobby of the hotel on the second floor of the building. He did not mention the particular letter in question. The warrant which was introduced in evidence, was not endorsed by English.
A detective for the Wichita police department testified that appellant admitted to him that on July 3, 1964, he and one Cooper went to the Bower Hotel; that he remained downstairs and Cooper went upstairs; that Cooper returned with two envelopes; that he, appellant, knew that the envelopes were taken from the mail container in the hotel; that he opened one of the envelopes and saw that it contained a county warrant; that he threw the envelope away; that he knew Cooper was going to steal the checks when they went to the hotel; that he knew the envelopes were stolen; and that he advised Cooper against the cashing of the warrants. No question is raised about the voluntariness of the admissions or about the adequacy of the warnings and statements of rights made by the detective to appellant before appellant's admissions.
In Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 152-156, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192, and Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 92-94, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101, the United States Supreme Court recognized as well established the principle that a conviction in a criminal case must rest upon firmer ground than the uncorroborated, extrajudicial admission or confession of an accused. The principle was stated again in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488-489, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441. Construing the Smith and Opper decisions, this court said in Braswell v. United States, 10 Cir., 224 F.2d 706, 711, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 845, 76 S.Ct. 86, 100 L.Ed. 752, that "the corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti." Following Braswell the court held in Sells v. United States, 10 Cir., 262 F.2d 815, 820, certiorari denied 360 U.S. 913, 79 S.Ct. 1298, 3 L.Ed.2d 1262, that the government must produce "independent evidence sufficiently supporting the essential admitted facts to justify a jury inference of the truth of the admitted facts"; and in Martinez v. United States, 10 Cir., 295 F.2d 426, 428-429, that the evidence as a whole must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Counsel for appellant relies on Wong Sun as holding that every essential element of the offense must be corroborated. We do not so read Wong Sun and we find nothing in it which detracts from this court's interpretation of the Smith and Opper decisions. The Supreme Court in Wong Sun quoted with approval1 the statement in Smith that extrinsic evidence is sufficient which "merely fortifies the truth of the confession, without independently establishing the crime charged."2
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Portee
...638, 665 n. 137 (1955); cf. Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 93, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101, 108--109 (1954); Felton v. United States, 344 F.2d 111 (10 Cir. 1965); Cash v. United States, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 265 F.2d 346, certiorari denied 359 U.S. 973, 79 S.Ct. 892, 3 L.Ed.2d 841 In G......
-
United States v. Wheeler
...v. United States, 374 F.2d 24 (10th Cir. 1966), cert. denied 389 U.S. 850, 88 S.Ct. 48, 19 L.Ed.2d 120 (1967); Felton v. United States, 344 F.2d 111 (10th Cir. 1965). Wheeler contends that the Court's additional instruction created the impression that the jury could find him guilty without ......
-
Osborn v. United States
...Cir., 375 F.2d 635; Corbin v. United States, 10 Cir., 253 F.2d 646. 3 See Edwards v. United States, 10 Cir., 374 F.2d 24; Felton v. United States, 10 Cir., 344 F.2d 111; and Corbin v. United States, 10 Cir., 253 F.2d 4 The following pertinent instructions were given by the trial court: "The......