U.S. v. Cameron, 76-1777

• Decision Date: 28 July 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-1777,76-1777
• Citation: 556 F.2d 752
• Parties: 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 382 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roosevelt CAMERON, a/k/a "Bud" Cameron, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 752

556 F.2d 752

2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 382

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roosevelt CAMERON, a/k/a "Bud" Cameron, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-1777.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

July 28, 1977.

J. Stephen Salter, Birmingham, Ala. (court appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., George C. Batcheler, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before GOLDBERG, SIMPSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.

SIMPSON, Circuit Judge:

In January, 1976, Roosevelt (or Bud) Cameron was found guilty by a jury of two Dyer Act violations, (a) for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, knowing it to have been stolen, Title 18, U.S.Code, § 2312, and (b) for receiving, concealing, storing, bartering, selling and disposing of a stolen motor vehicle moving as, or a part of, interstate commerce, knowing the same to have been stolen, Title 18, U.S.Code, § 2313. After denying a motion for new trial the court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to concurrent three year terms of confinement. Leave was granted him to appeal in forma pauperis and this appeal followed. We affirm.

I. THE RELEVANT FACTS

At the trial, neither the stolen character of the single vehicle involved, a 1968 Buick Electra, nor its recent movement in interstate commerce from Saginaw, Michigan, to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, nor that it was in Cameron's possession in Tuscaloosa shortly after it was stolen in Michigan, were seriously disputed. The defense centered, as to both counts, on the defendant's asserted lack of knowledge that the Buick was stolen, and further as to Count Two, on denial that he knowingly, feloniously and unlawfully received, concealed, stored, bartered, sold or disposed of the vehicle. ¹ The defendant's testimony was the main support for these defenses. The government relied on the theory that Cameron's possession of recently stolen property warranted an inference of his guilty knowledge of its stolen character, ² and called as a witness the defendant's wife, who testified to his possession of the stolen vehicle in Alabama shortly after the theft. She further testified that appellant, then living with her but not married to her, moved across town as soon as he learned that the Buick had been picked up on the street by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Her testimony was thus also supportive of the government's reliance on an inference of guilty knowledge as shown by flight and avoidance.

The marriage occurred a few days after the incidents described in the wife's testimony, detailed below. The marriage relationship was a sordid and stormy one, and the couple by the time of trial were separated, probably permanently. ³

When the government called the wife, Gloria Willis Cameron, to the stand the trial judge, in response to objection by defense counsel, expressed the view that she could not be compelled to testify as to any communication between her and her husband, assuming the existence of a valid marriage. The date of the marriage was established as April 14, 1975, a few weeks after the events charged in the indictment, ⁴ and its continued existence was also brought out, all in a preliminary voir dire of the witness by defense counsel, out of the jury's presence. The witness stated that she would testify if so instructed by the court, but that if she had the option not to testify, she would not.

The judge ruled that the government was free to call the witness, that objections would be sustained to questions as to communications between the witness and her husband, confidential or otherwise, but that objective facts could be brought out from the witness. ⁵

Gloria testified in substance on direct examination: that she first knew Cameron in early March, 1975, when he showed up in Tuscaloosa at the rooming house where she lived, 2900 17th Street, in the company of her uncle, Roy Dell Hopkins; that the two men stayed three or four or five days and left; that Cameron returned alone about two and one-half weeks later and again took up residence in a room at 2900 17th Street; that on the latter occasion he brought a suitcase and clothing and was traveling in the maroon and white Buick with a Michigan license tag; that she assumed the car was his; that he drove the Buick from the time he arrived, in March, until April 14, 1975 (the wedding date), and thereafter exercised control and ownership over the car; that sometime in May, while Cameron was absent, the police (or the FBI) had the car pulled off or picked up; that immediately thereafter she and Cameron moved to Northport with her father for about a week, and that Cameron made no effort to find out the reason the car was removed, or to retrieve some personal belongings he had left in it. She said that Cameron soon thereafter returned to Michigan. The court sustained an objection to a question as to whether or not the defendant made any statement to her prior to April 14, 1975, about where he obtained the car and how it came into his possession.

On cross-examination, Gloria testified that Cameron took the car to work every day, driving it all over town and making no attempt to conceal it; that the Michigan license plate remained on the car and that she never saw Bud make any attempt to change the little number on the windshield or on the door stop; and that he did not paint the car or alter it in any way. On re-direct examination she stated that Bud was in Saginaw, Michigan, in the interval between his first visit and the second time he returned to Tuscaloosa.

By motion for new trial, the appellant preserved for appellate review the court's claimed error in admitting the testimony of Gloria Willis Cameron over objection, on the ground that at the time of her testimony she was lawfully married to the appellant and that she stated she did not desire to testify.

This asserted ground of error is the principal question raised on appeal, but two additional grounds are urged, both properly preserved for our review by immediate objection, renewed by the motion for new trial: (a) the court's failure to instruct the jury that conviction for the crimes charged in the indictment requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted "wilfully" with specific intent, and (b) error by the court in charging the jury, in substance, that the law presumes that the defendant intended the natural consequences of his acts. We discuss these latter grounds first.

II. THE CHARGE TO THE JURY

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to adequately instruct the jury on the element of specific intent. Appellant argues that the charge limited the factual issue to intent without fully defining or explaining the "wilfulness" element. The wording used by the court was:

The issue you must decide arises under the second element of the offense which is doing such act or acts wilfully and with knowledge that the motor vehicle had been stolen. That is the issue for decision by you in this case.

Record, V. II, p. 194.

In United States v. Mancuso, 423 F.2d 23 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 839, 91 S.Ct. 79, 27 L.Ed.2d 73, this Court upheld as proper instructions given as to a Dyer Act offense very similar to the instruction quoted in the text, supra. In both cases guilty knowledge at the time of transportation and possession was the only issue. We find no error in the instruction. See Mancuso, id. at 29.

Appellant further contends that the district court erred in instructing the jury in such a way as to lessen the government's burden of proof. Appellant does not contend that the burden of proof was shifted, as was the case in Mann v. United States, 319 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. denied,375 U.S. 986, 84 S.Ct. 520, 11 L.Ed.2d 474 (1964), but, rather,...