United States v. Henry, 72-1346.

Decision Date10 November 1972
Docket NumberNo. 72-1346.,72-1346.
Citation468 F.2d 892
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roland HENRY, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Mark C. Meiering, Asst. U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M. (Victor R. Ortega, U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M., on the brief), for appellee.

Leon Taylor, Albuquerque, N. M., for appellant.

Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PICKETT, Circuit Judge.

Henry appeals from a conviction on eight counts of an indictment charging him with possession with intent to distribute prohibited narcotic substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1970). His main contentions are that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the narcotics were possessed with intent to distribute and that the decision of this court in United States v. Ortiz, 445 F.2d 1100 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 993, 92 S.Ct. 541, 30 L.Ed.2d 545 (1971), should be reexamined and limited or overruled.1

Without further discussion we adhere to the principle of the Ortiz case and hold that the evidence here is sufficient to sustain a proof of intent to distribute all of the prohibited narcotics named in the indictment.

In the early part of October 1971, Henry left Washington, D. C., with a prostitute, traveling by train to Miami, Florida, with a stop at Richmond, Virginia. The couple then proceeded to Los Angeles, California, and from there to Las Vegas, Nevada. In the latter part of October Henry, using the name of Stevenson, purchased a Winnebago motor home in Las Vegas for which he paid $15,000 or $16,000 in cash. Immediately after the purchase the couple left to drive to Phoenix, Arizona, where they purportedly met "Ray," an acquaintance and customer of Henry's female companion.

Ostensibly destined for New Orleans, Louisiana, the party of three drove to Gallup, New Mexico, where difficulties developed and "Ray" was ousted. Henry and his companion then proceeded on to Albuquerque, New Mexico. Henry, while driving the motor home on the streets of Albuquerque, collided with a motorcycle. It was not a serious accident and the city policeman permitted Henry to drive away without a traffic citation after a settlement was made with the motorcycle owner. Within a few minutes thereafter Henry's vehicle collided with two parked automobiles and the same officer who investigated the previous accident was called to the scene of the second collision. Upon arrival the officer found the Winnebago in a vacant lot. Its motor was still running. A quantity of money was lying on the steps of the vehicle and some was blowing about the neighborhood. The door of the vehicle was open and its contents in disarray. Henry had disappeared. A large amount of money was observed on the floor of the motor home. The total amount of cash recovered in and around the vehicle exceeded $19,000. A powder-like substance that had spilled from two overturned wooden canisters was in view on the floor of the vehicle. The police recovered this material, which was found to be heroin and cocaine. The quantity was sufficient to make approximately 65,000 average dose street quality capsules of heroin and 5,700 doses of speedball, a heroin-cocaine mixture. There was testimony that the value of the capsules was $10 each. The police officers also found varying quantities of methadone, demerol and marijuana. Henry was apprehended about three hours later with more than $1,100 in cash in his possession. The total amount of cash recovered from Henry's motor home and the surrounding area, including that found on his person, was more than $20,000. At the time of his arrest Henry was wearing high-heeled boots, the heels of which had been hollowed out and were found to contain a quantity of heroin, demerol and methadone. There was no direct evidence of actual sale or other distribution of the narcotics.

Henry's defense was that he had no knowledge that the narcotics were in his motor home or in the heels of his boots, which he stated were given to him by "Ray." He testified that the canisters were brought to the motor home by "Ray" and two of his companions. He maintained that for unknown reasons "Ray" and his companions, whom he says he saw just prior to the second collision, were determined to do him bodily harm, which accounted for his sudden disappearance from his motor home. Except from Henry's statements, "Ray" and his associates were never identified. He explained that the large sum of money in his possession was earned in pandering for his female companion. He admits that he was the owner in possession and control of the vehicle and that the narcotics were found therein. Under these conditions it may be inferred that as owner and possessor of the motor vehicle he had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • U.S. v. Troutman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • March 13, 1987
    ...States v. Masiello, 235 F.2d 279 (2d Cir.1956). Conspiracy cases may be proven exclusively by circumstantial evidence. United States v. Henry, 468 F.2d 892 (10th Cir.1972). The facts in the present case are similar to those in Masiello. There, the evidence was stronger against one defendant......
  • Menzies v. Crowther
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • January 11, 2019
    ...The Tenth Circuit has made it abundantly clear that "evidence supporting guilt may be entirely circumstantial." United States v. Henry, 468 F.2d 892, 894 (10th Cir. 1972). "The evidence supporting a conviction must be substantial, raising more than a mere suspicion of guilt, although the ev......
  • U.S. v. Gay, 83-2449
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • September 26, 1985
    ...true that the evidence supporting the conviction of possession with the intent to distribute is circumstantial. 6 United States v. Henry, 468 F.2d 892, 894 (10th Cir.1972); United States v. Ebey, 424 F.2d 376 (10th Cir.1970). Nonetheless, the circumstantial evidence required to support a ve......
  • U.S. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • December 6, 1994
    ...not negate all possibilities except guilt." United States v. Alonso, 790 F.2d 1489, 1493 (10th Cir.1986) (quoting United States v. Henry, 468 F.2d 892, 894 (10th Cir.1972)). Ronny Nowell, named in the indictment as a co-defendant, entered into a plea agreement and testified against the defe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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