United States v. Ellison, 73-4010 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-4010 Summary Calendar.,73-4010 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 494 F.2d 43 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell Wayne ELLISON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Ezra Shimshi, Atlanta, Ga. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
John W. Stokes, U. S. Atty., Gale McKenzie, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The jury returned verdicts of guilt against Darrell Wayne Ellison on all three counts of an indictment that charged him with possession of stolen mail matter — a United States treasury check — with knowledge of its felonious character in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708, forging the name of the check's true payee in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 495, and uttering and publishing the payee's forged name with intent to defraud the United States as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 495. He appeals from his conviction and the attendant indeterminant sentence under the applicable provisions of the Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b), asserting as error the following:
In capsule, the facts stated most favorably to the jury's verdict showed that Ellison rented space in a rooming house. Mail for all occupants of the premises was deposited in a single letter box. Ellison removed a letter from this box containing a check payable to a former tenant and after forging the payee's name cashed the check to secure money for drugs. The court specifically charged the jury that Ellison could not be found guilty unless he knew that the check was stolen when he possessed it, that he forged the payee's name on the stolen check for the purpose of obtaining funds from the United States and that he acted with the intent either to cause loss to another or to bring a gain to himself. The court further charged that drug intoxication could affect the foundation of such intent. These charges were not excepted to.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Beechum
...knew that the item was stolen, and (4) that the defendant specifically intended to possess the item unlawfully. See United States v. Ellison, 494 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Kimbrell, 487 F.2d 219 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Martinez, 466 F.2d 679 (5th Cir. 1972), Cert. ......
-
U.S. v. Robinson, 170
...government must prove "intent to defraud." Thus, specific intent is an essential element of the crime of uttering. United States v. Ellison, 494 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Sullivan, 406 F.2d 180, 186 (2d Cir. 1969); Ross v. United States, 374 F.2d 97, 101 (8th Cir.) (Blackmun......
-
U.S. v. White
...the check, intent to defraud was not established. Specific intent to defraud is an element of the offense of forgery. United States v. Ellison, 494 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1974). In this case the judge charged the jury that intent to defraud was an essential element of the crime. The judge furthe......
-
U.S. v. Hester
...fraudulent.7 Most of the recent cases interpreting the forgery statute were decided by the Fifth Circuit. See, e. g., United States v. Ellison, 494 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Marshall, 431 F.2d 944, 945 (5th Cir. 1970); Truitt v. United States, 409 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1969). C......