Matula v. United States
| Decision Date | 04 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 7508,7509.,7508 |
| Citation | 327 F.2d 337 |
| Parties | Joseph John MATULA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Jamie MATHIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Jerry C. Connell, Lakewood, Colo., for appellants.
John H. Quinn, U. S. Atty. (John A. Babington, Asst. U. S. Atty., was with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before PICKETT, LEWIS and SETH, Circuit Judges.
Appellants were each convicted of unlawfully transporting firearms across state lines in violation of 15 U.S.C.A. § 902(e). Each appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish a prior conviction of a "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year * * *."1 The evidence is admittedly sufficient to show that both Matula and Mathis did transport firearms from Texas to New Mexico.
The evidence relating to prior conviction is similar in substance as to each appellant. Government witnesses testified to an extra-judicial statement made by Matula to the effect that he had been convicted of assault with intent to commit murder in Bexar County, Texas, in 1958, and had received a seven-year sentence; that Mathis had stated that he had been convicted of forging and uttering in Coleman County, Texas, in 1956, and had received a two-year sentence. Authenticated copies of Texas state court records were also placed in evidence showing convictions identical in name, place, nature of offense, times and terms of sentence.
An essential element of an offense may not be proved by an uncorroborated extra-judicial statement of the defendant, Kelly v. United States, 10 Cir., 246 F.2d 864; nor, in a Federal Firearms Act prosecution, does the government discharge its total burden of proving a prior conviction by the introduction of court records pertaining to a person of same or similar name, Gravatt v. United States, 10 Cir., 260 F.2d 498. However, each such channel of proof is a proper approach and becomes sufficient in law when supported by independent evidence tending to support its trustworthiness. The independent proof need not be sufficient, alone, to establish the element of the offense. Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101; Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192.
In the case at bar neither the appellants' extra-judicial statements nor the Texas state court records, when considered separately, are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Jackson
...15. The government cites two cases which, it claims, support its corroboration argument. They are not apposite. In Matula v. United States, 327 F.2d 337, 338 (10th Cir.1964), there was far more corroboration of the defendants' identities than in our case. The court observed numerous shared ......
-
State v. Paris
...U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192, beyond a reasonable doubt. Cases which have applied the Opper standard include Matula v. United States (10th Cir. 1964) 327 F.2d 337; Martinez v. United States (10th Cir.1961) 295 F.2d 426; Landsdown v. United States (5th Cir.1965) 348 F.2d 405; United ......
-
Chase v. Crisp, 74-1663
...i. e., Chase. His latter allegation does have merit. See, United States v. McCray, 468 F.2d 446 (10th Cir. 1972); Matula v. United States, 327 F.2d 337 (10th Cir. 1964); Arriaga-Ramirez v. United States, 325 F.2d 857 (10th Cir. 1963); Gravatt v. United States, 260 F.2d 498 (10th Cir. 1958).......
-
Pasterchik v. United States
...a prior conviction by the introduction of court records pertaining to a person of same or similar name. * * *" Matula v. United States, 327 F.2d 337, 338 (10th Cir. 1964); Gravatt v. United States, 260 F. 2d 498 (10th Cir. 1958). While we think that the prosecution was somewhat careless in ......