U.S. v. Weis, 81-1988
| Decision Date | 14 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1988,81-1988 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Marion E. WEIS, a/k/a "Sonny" Weis, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Kermit B. Anderson, U. S. Atty., Ronald M. Kayser, Asst. U. S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee.
Keith E. Uhl, Scalise, Scism, Gentry, Brick & Brick, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellant.
Before HEANEY, McMILLIAN and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Sonny Weis appeals his conviction for the interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312. We affirm.
Weis was indicted for theft, conspiracy and interstate transportation, arising out of an incident in which a truck cab, trailer and shipment of antifreeze were stolen over the Memorial Day weekend in 1980. The cab was stolen from Omaha, Nebraska; the trailer and its contents were stolen from Council Bluffs, Iowa; and the two ended up together near Stuart, Iowa, although they were ultimately abandoned in separate locations. Weis was acquitted by a jury of the conspiracy charge, and the trial court 1 granted a judgment of acquittal on the theft count (on which the jury had convicted). Thus, the only conviction on appeal is the Dyer Act count, based on the transportation of the stolen truck cab from Omaha to Stuart, Iowa.
Weis attacks the conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence and erroneous jury instructions, both of which ultimately turn on the same question. There is no direct evidence of Weis physically taking the truck cab from Omaha. As Weis concedes, however, there is sufficient evidence that Weis was in possession of the truck in Iowa approximately two days after it was stolen from Omaha. App.Br. at 20, 24. Indeed, there is substantial evidence that, at the time of his possession, Weis was attempting to sell the stolen antifreeze shipment which was in the truck trailer. The district court instructed the jury that it may, from evidence of unexplained possession of a vehicle recently stolen from another state, infer the element of interstate transportation with knowledge the vehicle was stolen. Here, because there is sufficient evidence of Weis's possession, there is sufficient evidence to support his conviction-if the "permissible inference" instruction is valid.
We recognize that the inference may be rather broad, but it is only a permissible inference and not one that is presumed. The validity of the instruction is well settled in this Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 563 F.2d 936 (8th Cir. 1977); United States v. Verdoorn, 528 F.2d 103 (8th Cir. 1976). Because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Clark, 94-1267
...Of course, the district court must ensure that the evidence warrants permitting the jury to draw an inference. See United States v. Weis, 675 F.2d 217, 218 (8th Cir.1982). On the facts of this case, an instruction permitting this inference was well within the district court's Clark next cha......
-
U.S. v. Nabors
...U.S. 1021, 98 S.Ct. 746, 54 L.Ed.2d 768 (1978) (instruction approved where defendant is charged with bank robbery); United States v. Weis, 675 F.2d 217, 218 (8th Cir.1982). See also United States v. Harbin, 585 F.2d 904 (8th In the present case, none of the stolen money was recovered. Tray ......
-
U.S. v. Mansaw
...commerce and (2) the party in possession knew that the motor vehicle was stolen. Id. at 515; see, e.g., United States v. Weis, 675 F.2d 217, 218 (8th Cir.1982) (per curiam). However, the mere suspicion of possession will not support the inferences of transportation and guilty knowledge. E.g......