Niederluecke v. United States, 8854.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 8854.,8854. |
| Citation | 47 F.2d 888 |
| Parties | NIEDERLUECKE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
William R. Lay, of Steelville, Mo. (Paul A. Richards, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
C. J. Stattler, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo. (Louis H. Breuer, U. S. Atty., of Rolla, Mo., on the brief), for the United States.
Before STONE and BOOTH, Circuit Judges, and DEWEY, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for interstate transportation of a stolen automobile from St. Louis, Mo., to Madison, Ill.
The appellant urges two matters here: First, insufficiency of the evidence; and, second, error in the charge of the court.
I. The argument in support of the insufficiency of the evidence is directed to the point that the evidence did not show that appellant had knowledge that the car which he admittedly transported from St. Louis, Mo., to Madison, Ill., was a stolen car. The evidence shows that this car was stolen on October 28, 1925, between 10 and 12 o'clock forenoon from a place where it was parked near 2123 Locust street, St. Louis, Mo.; that appellant was seen very near that address standing on Locust street shortly after ten o'clock that morning; that he took this car over to Madison, Ill., from St. Louis, Mo., on the morning of November 16th. The argument is that this evidence was not sufficient to establish knowledge upon his part that the car was stolen when he transported it. The evidence is sufficient. Defendant denies he was on Locust street that day and presented testimony intended to show innocent possession of the car, but the jury were entitled to disbelieve his evidence and believe that of two witnesses who testified to seeing him there at that time. The jury were justified in finding that he was there at about the time the car was stolen. This, in connection with his denial that he was there and his later possession of this very car, was sufficient to justify the conclusion by the jury that he had full knowledge as to the car being stolen. It is well established that the unexplained possession of stolen property shortly after the theft is sufficient to justify the conclusion by a jury of knowledge by the possessor that the property was stolen. The facts in the present case are very much stronger, for they add to this presumption the fact that the one later found in possession was present at the place and at about the time the theft was committed.
II. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wangrow v. United States
...property and need not consider the argument further. E.g., Bruce v. United States, 73 F.2d 972 (8th Cir. 1934); Niederluecke v. United States, 47 F.2d 888 (8th Cir. 1931); Beufve v. United States, 374 F.2d 123 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 881, 88 S.Ct. 122, 19 L.Ed.2d 175 (1967); Unit......
-
Barfield v. United States
...Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 16 S.Ct. 895, 40 L.Ed. 1090; Levi v. United States, 5 Cir., 71 F.2d 353, 354; Niederluecke v. United States, 8 Cir., 47 F.2d 888. 5 On the issue of defendant's knowledge that he was transporting a stolen automobile, the court charged: "* * * I am going......
-
United States v. Kiliyan
...a basis for the inference, and was sufficient to justify the conclusion arrived at by the jury in this case. Niederluecke v. United States, 47 F.2d 888 (8 Cir. 1931); Hale v. United States, 410 F.2d 147 (5 Cir. 1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 902, 90 S.Ct. 216, 24 L.Ed.2d 179. It is, of course, ......
-
United States v. Washington, Cr. No. 21021.
...but also that he had transported it in interstate commerce. And Wolf v. United States, 7 Cir., 1929, 36 F.2d 450 and Niederluecke v. United States, 8 Cir., 1931, 47 F.2d 888 are to the same effect. But in United States v. Bollenbach, 2 Cir., 1944, 147 F.2d 199, 202, the Second Circuit held ......