Thomas v. United States, 5427.

Decision Date28 December 1956
Docket NumberNo. 5427.,5427.
Citation239 F.2d 7
PartiesHelen THOMAS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Raymond D. Buckles, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Robert S. Wham, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo. (Donald E. Kelley, U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., was with him on the brief), for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, MURRAH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

An information was filed against Helen Thomas and Thelma Lorraine Williams, charging that on August 6, 1955, in the District of Colorado they "did fraudulently and knowingly receive, conceal and facilitate the transportation and concealment of a narcotic drug, to-wit, 470 gelatin capsules containing heroin, after said heroin had been imported and brought into the United States, knowing the same to have been brought in contrary to law, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174."

Thomas entered a plea of not guilty and was tried, convicted and sentenced. She has appealed.

On August 6, 1955, A. C. Ellis, Jr. examined an air mail special delivery parcel, which had originated at Los Angeles, California, bore a return address of M. T. Thompson, and was addressed to Mrs. Alice Taylor at 3036 Williams Street, Denver, Colorado. The package was not sealed. It was wrapped with string. After examining the contents, Ellis replaced the contents and retied the package with the string. The package contained 470 capsules and the total net weight of the contents of the capsules was 846 grains. At the trial it was stipulated that the capsules contained a certain quantity of heroin. Ellis communicated with John W. Marsh, a Narcotics Agent for the United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Narcotics. Marsh then went to the post office, accompanied by two other Narcotics Agents. Marsh took four of the capsules from the package and caused a portion of their contents to be analyzed. He then returned the four capsules to the post office, placed them in the package and retied the package with the string.

Russell Covey, a special delivery messenger, was designated to deliver the package. Ellis, Marsh, and Narcotic Agents Ford and Gress, and a City Detective, Talty, then went to the vicinity of 3036 Williams Street. Marsh and Gress stationed themselves in a position where they could observe the front door of an apartment at 3036 Williams Street. Agent Ford and Detective Talty went to the rear of the apartment. Ellis remained under cover of the automobile in which the officers went to 3036 Williams Street. Shortly thereafter, Covey arrived with the package. Covey testified that on August 6, 1955, at about 9:30 a. m., he took the package to 3036 Williams Street and knocked at the door; that a lady, thereafter identified as Thomas, came to the door; that he informed her he had a special delivery package for Mrs. Alice Taylor; that Thomas "semi-turned away from me and said back into the apartment, `Alice, put on some clothes. You have a special delivery package.'"; that Thomas then opened the screen door a little bit and he assumed she was going to take the package; that he then made an effort to hand her the package, but that she did not take it; that she looked up the court both ways and then shut the screen door; that another lady, thereafter identified as Williams, came into the front room of the apartment; that Thomas told him he could not look, because Williams was not dressed; that Thomas then opened the screen door for a second time and he again assumed she was going to take the package and offered it to her. She did not take it. She looked up the court both ways, again shut the screen door; that Williams asked if she had to sign for the package. He informed her it was not insured or registered and no signature was necessary. Thomas then pushed the screen door open and Williams came up and accepted the package.

At that juncture, in keeping with a prior arrangement, Ellis signaled Agents Marsh and Gress. Marsh and Gress then went to the front door of the apartment. Marsh rattled the screen door, and stated, "Federal Officer, Open up." Williams then ran toward the rear of the apartment. Marsh then broke through the screen door and went into the kitchen and out the back door. At that time, Agent Ford and Detective Talty came around the building. Williams stopped and Ford and Talty arrested her and brought her back into the apartment.

Agent Gress placed Thomas under arrest.

Ellis testified that Thomas was fully clothed, but that Williams was clothed only from the waist down.

When Marsh entered the apartment the package was lying on a coffee table and Thomas was sitting on a divan immediately in front of the coffee table.

Both Williams and Thomas refused to open the package and denied that either of them was Alice Taylor. The officers opened the package and inspected the capsules. Williams and Thomas said ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • U.S. v. Marshall
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • September 10, 1990
    ...of the drugs for charging or sentencing purposes. See Davis v. United States, 279 F.2d 576, 578 (4th Cir.1960); Thomas v. United States, 239 F.2d 7, 8 (10th Cir.1956) (weight of heroin sold in both cases excludes the weight of the capsule containing the heroin). Capsules are made of gelatin......
  • Corbin v. United States, 5736.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • February 17, 1958
    ...the substantial evidence rule or the circumstantial evidence rule and a compilation of the decisions pro and con. 9 Cf. Thomas v. United States, 10 Cir., 239 F.2d 7, 10. 10 United States v. New York Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 7 Cir., 173 F.2d 79, 11 55 Col.L.Rev., supra. 12 Stopp......
  • People v. Baker
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • October 2, 1969
    ...States (1959), 107 U.S.App.D.C. 126, 275 F.2d 155, 158; Sun B. Lee v. United States (CA 9, 1957), 245 F.2d 322; Thomas v. United States (CA 10, 1956), 239 F.2d 7, 10.The cited cases were decided after Bryan v. United States (1950), 338 U.S. 552, 559, 560, 70 S.Ct. 317, 94 L.Ed. 335. In that......
  • Melton v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • July 18, 1968
    ...F.2d 521, 522. 2 See San Fratello v. United States, 5 Cir., 340 F.2d 560, 565-567, rehearing denied 343 F.2d 711. 3 See Thomas v. United States, 10 Cir., 239 F.2d 7, 10; Bryan v. United States, 338 U.S. 552, 70 S.Ct. 317, 94 L.Ed. 335; Forman v. United States, 361 U.S. 416, 425-426, 80 S.Ct......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT