Overton v. United States, 25533.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 25533.,25533. |
| Citation | 405 F.2d 168 |
| Parties | Thomas OVERTON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Harl C. Duffey, Jr., Rome, Ga., for appellant.
F. D. Hand, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before BELL and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and BOYLE, District Judge.
Appellant was indicted and convicted for receiving a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 2313. The Alabama owner of the automobile reported it as stolen on or about December 2, 1967. On December 10, the automobile was discovered in the possession of appellant, a used car dealer, in Rossville, Georgia. An "under the hood" type of serial number plate was found loosely affixed to a door of the automobile. It had been removed from a wrecked vehicle in Tennessee. An inspection of the non-public serial number disclosed that the automobile in appellant's possession was in fact, the one missing from Albertsville, Alabama.
The contention that there was a failure of proof with respect to guilty knowledge on the part of appellant is without merit. Such knowledge may be established by circumstantial evidence, and possession of a stolen vehicle recently after its theft may justify the inference, in the absence of a reasonable explanation, that the possession is guilty possession. In any event, the facts here made a jury issue. Welch v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 386 F.2d 189; Odom v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 377 F.2d 853. Moreover, we have held that knowledge of interstate transportation is not vital: "The Dyer Act is violated when one receives a stolen automobile with knowledge of its theft even if he is unaware that it has been transported in interstate commerce." Pilgrim v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 486, 488.
The court's charge regarding possession of recently stolen property was consistent with the foregoing principles and the contention that it was erroneous is without merit. As to other errors, those asserted with respect to the handling of the witness Newman are without merit. There was no objection to the charge of the court with respect to the term "fraudulently" and we hold that this portion of the charge was not plain error.
The last assignment of error is based on the fact that the court refused to continue the case for some two hours to permit appellant to call a defense...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Pacheco
...v. Blassingame, 2 Cir., 1970, 427 F.2d 329, 330, cert. denied, 402 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 1629, 29 L.Ed.2d 114 (1971); Overton v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 405 F.2d 168, 169; Pipes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 399 F.2d 471, 472, cert. denied, 394 U.S. 934, 89 S.Ct. 1207, 22 L.Ed.2d 464 (1......
-
U.S. v. Uptain
...Blackwell v. United States, 405 F.2d 625 (5 Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 962, 89 S.Ct. 2104, 23 L.Ed.2d 747 (1969); Overton v. United States, 405 F.2d 168 (5 Cir. 1968); Ray v. United States, 352 F.2d 521 (5 Cir. 1965); Suit v. Ellis, 282 F.2d 145 (5 Cir. 1960); Heflin v. United States, 22......
-
U.S. v. Robinson
...or connection with the vehicle's movement to be federally liable. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2313 (1982 & Supp. II 1984); Overton v. United States, 405 F.2d 168, 169 (5th Cir.1968). Consider, moreover, how the occurrence of an injury or death can make negligent conduct manslaughter, see 32 J. Nolan......
-
Hale v. United States, 26318.
...explaining his registration of the car. The Government's brief states that the FBI was unable to locate Ladd. 6 See Overton v. United States, 405 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1968); Beufve v. United States, 374 F.2d 123, 125 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 881, 88 S.Ct. 122, 19 L. Ed. 175 (1967); ......