United States v. Bishop, 20504.

Decision Date11 February 1971
Docket NumberNo. 20504.,20504.
Citation437 F.2d 97
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Pleaz William Mobley, Manchester, Ky., on brief for defendant-appellant.

Eugene E. Siler, Jr., U. S. Atty., William D. Kirkland, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., on brief for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WEICK and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

We consider the appeal of Johnny Bishop from a judgment, entered upon a jury verdict returned in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, convicting him of an indictment's charge that, on or about March 21, 1969, he had:

"received and concealed a stolen motor vehicle, to-wit, a 1968 Corvette, which was moving as, was a part of and which constituted interstate commerce, from Lebanon, in the State of Ohio, to Clay County, in the Eastern District of Kentucky, knowing same to have been stolen,"

in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. § 2313.

This prosecution arose from the same transaction in which appellant's brother, Jobie Bishop, stole in Ohio and transported to Kentucky the 1968 Corvette mentioned in the above indictment. Jobie Bishop's conviction for such offense, upon a separate trial, has been sustained by this Court. United States v. Bishop, 434 F.2d 1284 (6th Cir., 1970). We held that the evidence in that case was sufficient to permit a jury to find that Jobie had transported the Corvette to Kentucky where its motor was removed and its chassis burned. The arresting officers found the motor in the possession of appellant Johnny Bishop and the burned chassis on a river bank about three miles from the farm home of Leon Bishop, father of Jobie and Johnny. Jobie Bishop testified at his own trial as well as at Johnny's. Johnny did not take the stand at either trial.

The evidence at both trials established the theft of the Corvette at Lebanon, Ohio, and its discovery in Clay County, Kentucky. Jobie denied stealing the vehicle. It was his story that the motor found in Johnny's possession had been brought by him to Johnny for the purpose of having it installed in the chassis of a 1959 Corvette already owned by Jobie. He said that he purchased the motor — the engine block — from a used car dealer in Lebanon and carried it to Clay County, Kentucky, in the trunk of his own Chevrolet car. At both trials Jobie disclaimed any connection with or knowledge of the burned Corvette chassis found near his father's home. The government's proofs, however, clearly established that the engine block found in Johnny's possession and the burned chassis both belonged to the stolen 1968 Corvette.

The question involved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant submission of appellant's guilt to the jury.

We affirm.

In addition to Johnny's receiving and possessing the stolen engine block, there was evidence that he told one of the arresting officers that his brother had said the motor was "hot" and that he had understood that it had been stolen. Appellant denied making such admissions, but a factual issue for the jury's resolution was made. There was, however, no direct evidence that appellant Johnny Bishop ever had possession of the chassis of the stolen Corvette or had any knowledge of it. In our opinion in Jobie's case, we held in effect that transportation, possession or concealment of one part of a motor vehicle does not constitute violation of the Dyer Act. We said:

"Even considering the broad congressional purpose of the Dyer Act, United States v. Turley, supra, 352 U.S. 407, 77 S.Ct. 397, 1 L.Ed.2d 430 it cannot be said that an engine block, taken by itself may be fairly encompassed within the wording of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2311, 2312 (1964)." United States v. Bishop, 434 F.2d 1284 (6th Cir. 1970).

In Jobie's case there was no direct evidence that he had driven the Corvette from Lebanon, Ohio, to Clay County, Kentucky. But notwithstanding our above quoted observation, we held that the total circumstances warranted submission of the question of Jobie's guilt. We said:

"A review of the full record reveals (1) admissions by the Appellant both in court and to federal agents relating to the possession, interstate transportation, and delivery of an allegedly stolen engine block; (2) a contradicted explanation of how the Appellant came to be in possession of the allegedly stolen engine block; (3) an ongoing relationship between the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • United States v. Craven
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • May 8, 1973
    ...remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. United States v. Morgan, 469 F. 2d 83 (6th Cir. 1972); United States v. Bishop, 437 F.2d 97 (6th Cir. 1971); United States v. Prieur, 429 F.2d 1237 (6th Cir. 1970); United States v. Bradley, 421 F.2d 924 (6th Cir. 1970); United States......
  • U.S. v. Shanks, 74-1697
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • July 8, 1975
    ...In that case the Sixth Circuit discouraged the reading of Wallace too broadly. In Bishop, and in a companion case, United States v. Bishop, 437 F.2d 97 (6th Cir. 1971), in which the first Bishop defendant's brother was involved, the court held that transportation or receipt or concealment o......
  • U.S. v. Beverly, 83-1862
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 3, 1984
    ...evidence remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. United States v. Morgan, 469 F.2d 83 (6th Cir.1972); United States v. Bishop, 437 F.2d 97 (6th Cir.1971); United States v. Prieur, 429 F.2d 1237 (6th Cir.1970); United States v. Bradley, 421 F.2d 924 (6th Cir.1970); United St......

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