Thompson v. United States, 21195.

• Decision Date: 13 July 1964
• Docket Number: No. 21195.,21195.
• Citation: 334 F.2d 207
• Parties: Rayford Lavaughn THOMPSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

334 F.2d 207 (1964)

Rayford Lavaughn THOMPSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 21195.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

July 13, 1964.

Eugene C. Mitchell, John J. Higgins, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

Joe H. Mount, Asst. U. S. Atty., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, BROWN, Circuit Judge, and BREWSTER District Judge.

BREWSTER, District Judge:

This appeal is from a two count conviction, with the first count charging interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle from California to Florida on or about January 31, 1961, in violation of 18 U.S. C.A. § 2312, and the second count, the sale of such stolen vehicle in Florida on or about January 31, 1961, while it was still moving in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2313.

The same automobile was involved in each count, and it was described in the indictment as being "a 1960 Chevrolet two-door coupe, Identification Number 01837 L 123003, the property of Leonard Bohrer, 4618 Los Feliz Boulevard, Los Angeles, California."

The appellant's chief complaint here is of rulings of the trial court on his motions for judgment of acquittal presented at the conclusion of the evidence and after the verdict. Those motions challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction under each count on the ground that the proof failed to establish that the 1960 Chevrolet coupe shown to have been in his possession in Florida on January 31, 1961, was the same one which was stolen from Bohrer in California, and that the evidence was therefore insufficient to establish that he had transported in interstate commerce the stolen Bohrer automobile.

Leonard Bohrer testified that the car described in the indictment belonged to him, and was stolen on December 25, 1960 from the place where it was parked in front of his residence at 4618 Los Feliz Boulevard, Los Angeles. The only description he gave was that it was a 1960 rust colored Chevrolet Impala coupe, serial number 01837 L 123003. He verified the number from documents in his possession which were admitted in evidence. There was no evidence as to any other distinguishing factors.

The government sought to prove that the appellant transported the stolen Bohrer automobile in interstate commerce by putting him in possession of an automobile of the same make, model, body style, type and color, in California a few days after the theft, and in Florida about a month later, with reasonable allowance being made for variations in witnesses' descriptions of the color, as is permitted in these cases under the rule stated in Johnson v. United States, 8 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 673, and United States v. Perry, 7 Cir., 1963, 324 F.2d 871.

Within a week after Bohrer's car was taken, appellant was in possession in Glendale, California, of a 1960 Chevrolet Impala coupe. There was no evidence as to its serial number. One witness described the color as brown and another as bronze. The appellant knew it was stolen and that the owner lived somewhere on Los Feliz Boulevard. Around January 1, 1961, he made the statement that he was going to take it to Florida to sell it.

On January 31, 1961, the appellant sold a 1960 Chevrolet Impala coupe to Gene C. Liles in Orlando, Florida. Liles said the color was brown or bronze. The appellant transferred to Liles a Louisiana certificate of title to a 1960 Chevrolet coupe bearing serial number 01837 A 110882, as contrasted to 01837 L 123003, the true number on the Bohrer car. Liles checked the serial number on the small metal plate at the regular place on the door post of the coupe and it corresponded to the one on the title certificate tendered him.

It was the government's theory that, for the purpose of concealing the real identity of the Bohrer car and of facilitating the sale, the appellant had secured a Louisiana title certificate to a wrecked Chevrolet of the same model and type; and that he obtained the metal identification plate from the door post of that automobile after it had been junked and substituted it for the true number on the Bohrer car. There was evidence to support the claim that the title...