U.S. v. Hood, No. 94-3705
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MURPHY; DIANA E. MURPHY |
| Citation | 51 F.3d 128 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lee HOOD, also known as Henry Leon Hood, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 94-3705 |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1995 |
Page 128
v.
Lee HOOD, also known as Henry Leon Hood, Appellant.
Eighth Circuit.
Decided March 24, 1995.
Robert Thomas, St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellant.
David Rosen, St. Louis, MO, for appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MURPHY, Circuit Judge.
DIANA E. MURPHY, Circuit Judge.
Lee Hood appeals his conviction after a jury trial of two counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341. Hood was sentenced to two months imprisonment, a total fine of $500 and two years supervised release on each count. He argues that the district court 1 erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm.
Hood was charged with involvement in a scheme to defraud an insurance company. The scheme allegedly consisted of the making of a false representation that co-defendant Robert Ernst's boat had been stolen and the making of a fraudulent claim on it. Hood states that evidence showing that he knew the boat was stolen and an insurance claim was made is not enough to prove his involvement in fraud. Suspicious circumstances alone do not establish criminal conduct. The government responds that the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction.
The evidence at trial indicated that Ernst was in significant debt and had tried unsuccessfully to sell his boat, which was insured by Metropolitan Property & Casualty Company. On November 3, 1993, co-defendant Joe Martin approached Martin Dames and offered to sell him Ernst's boat. Martin indicated that the owner was giving up the boat to collect insurance money. Unknown to Martin, Dames was an undercover informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and he recorded their conversations about the boat. They met several times, and
Page 129
Dames agreed to buy it. Martin told Dames that there was a middleman who met with the owner and acted as the go-between with Martin.After Ernst filed an insurance claim, the adjuster asked him for the keys to the boat. One ignition key was missing because Martin had given it to Dames after the sale. In order to retrieve it, Martin contacted Dames and set up a meeting for January 24, 1994. Martin arrived at the meeting with Hood. Dames produced the key, wiped his fingerprints off it, and handed it to Martin....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
USA v. Tiran Rodez Casteel, No. 1:08-cr-00053.
...Rule 29 contemplates the occurrence, it is well-settled that “[j]ury verdicts are not lightly overturned.” 1 United States v. Hood, 51 F.3d 128, 129 (8th Cir.1995). Therefore, “[a] motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted only if there is no interpretation of the evidence that wou......
-
U.S. v. Schneider, No. CR00-4029MWB.
...specifically provides for such eventualities, it is well-settled that "[j]ury verdicts are not lightly overturned." United States v. Hood, 51 F.3d 128, 129 (8th Cir.1995); accord United States v. Burks, 934 F.2d 148, 151 (8th Cir.1991). Rather, the case law governing motions for judgment of......
-
U.S. v. Mansker, No. CR02-4060-MWB.
...specifically provides for such eventualities, it is well-settled that "[j]ury verdicts are not lightly overturned." United States v. Hood, 51 F.3d 128, 129 (8th Cir.1995); accord United States v. Burks, 934 F.2d 148, 151 (8th Cir.1991). Rather, the caselaw governing motions for judgment of ......
-
US v. Schultz, No. C 95-3011.
...1325 jury should not be overturned lightly") (quoting United States v. Burks, 934 F.2d 148, 151 (8th Cir.1991)); United States v. Hood, 51 F.3d 128, 129 (8th Cir.1995) ("jury verdicts are not lightly overturned") (citing Burks, 934 F.2d at 151); Burks, 934 F.2d at 151. The jury's verdict mu......
-
USA v. Tiran Rodez Casteel, No. 1:08-cr-00053.
...Rule 29 contemplates the occurrence, it is well-settled that “[j]ury verdicts are not lightly overturned.” 1 United States v. Hood, 51 F.3d 128, 129 (8th Cir.1995). Therefore, “[a] motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted only if there is no interpretation of the evidence that wou......
-
U.S. v. Schneider, No. CR00-4029MWB.
...specifically provides for such eventualities, it is well-settled that "[j]ury verdicts are not lightly overturned." United States v. Hood, 51 F.3d 128, 129 (8th Cir.1995); accord United States v. Burks, 934 F.2d 148, 151 (8th Cir.1991). Rather, the case law governing motions for judgment of......
-
U.S. v. Mansker, No. CR02-4060-MWB.
...specifically provides for such eventualities, it is well-settled that "[j]ury verdicts are not lightly overturned." United States v. Hood, 51 F.3d 128, 129 (8th Cir.1995); accord United States v. Burks, 934 F.2d 148, 151 (8th Cir.1991). Rather, the caselaw governing motions for judgment of ......
-
US v. Schultz, No. C 95-3011.
...1325 jury should not be overturned lightly") (quoting United States v. Burks, 934 F.2d 148, 151 (8th Cir.1991)); United States v. Hood, 51 F.3d 128, 129 (8th Cir.1995) ("jury verdicts are not lightly overturned") (citing Burks, 934 F.2d at 151); Burks, 934 F.2d at 151. The jury's verdict mu......