United States v. Hughes
| Decision Date | 27 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 26955.,26955. |
| Citation | 418 F.2d 1222 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pressie HUGHES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Donald G. Nichols, Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Joseph W. Hatchett, First Asst. U. S. Atty., John W. Caven, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before TUTTLE, WISDOM and BELL, Circuit Judges.
This appeal from appellant's conviction on three counts of an information charging him with the false making, publishing, and unlawful possession of a stolen United States Treasury check1 makes two contentions: (1) the in-court identification of appellant by two employees of the Marina where an hour-long negotiation for the purchase of an outboard motor followed an out-of-court inspection by the witnesses of a "picture spread" or "rogues gallery" of some thirty persons, and this inspection so tainted their identification as to require exclusion of their eye-witness identification:
(2) The check was illegally admitted in evidence, because of a lack of proof of a continuous chain of custody of the check up to the time of trial.
As to the first objection, we conclude that the absence of any possibility of unfairness in the manner in which the witnesses were permitted to look at a group of thirty pictures, and the fact that one witness negotiated with appellant for an hour and the other positively identified him as the person who signed the payee's name to the check given in payment for the boat, brings the case within the standards established by this court in United States v. Venere, 5 Cir. 1969, 416 F.2d 144, September 9, 1969, and Simmons v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247. The trial court did not err in admitting the in-court identification.
As to the second argument, the check in evidence was identified by official records of the proper government official as being a check issued to one Raymond Gallion; Gallion testified that he never received the check; the witnesses testified that the signature on the check in evidence had been placed there by appellant Hughes. It was not disputed that Hughes was not the payee, Gallion. No further proof of identification of this check described in the information was required. It was not error for the court to admit the check in evidence. If this check is shown to be the one stolen and is shown to be the one falsely endorsed by forging of the name of the payee, there is no requirement that the government show who had custody at each moment between the issuing of the check and the time of trial. See Robinson v. United States, 1960, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 283 F.2d 508, cert. den. 364 U.S. 919, 81 S.Ct. 282, 5 L.Ed. 2d 259, setting forth the guidelines to be applied in deciding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Beechum, 76-1444
...United States v. Johnson, 463 F.2d 216 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1028, 93 S.Ct. 472, 34 L.Ed.2d 322 (1972); United States v. Hughes, 418 F.2d 1222 (5th Cir. 1969). To be sure, evidence of non-receipt tends to show that the checks were stolen from the mails. Evidence that defendant ......
-
United States v. Green, 30042.
...itself candidly laid before the jury, as was done in this case. 8 Barber v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 775; United States v. Hughes, 5 Cir. 1969, 418 F.2d 1222; United States v. Ballard, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 127; United States v. Sutherland, 5 Cir. 1970, 428 F.2d 1152; United Sta......
-
United States v. Ballard
...Harris confrontation occurred before June 12, 1967 and for that reason, Wade was held to be inapplicable. Also, in United States v. Hughes, 418 F.2d 1222 (5th Cir. 1969), we held that an in-court identification which followed an out-of-court picture spread was not so tainted as to require e......
-
U.S. v. Hughes
...an appeal was taken, Hughes still being represented by his retained counsel; the convictions were affirmed in United States v. Hughes, 418 F.2d 1222 (5th Cir. 1969). In September, 1975, seven years after the convictions, Hughes moved for a vacation of judgment and sentence pursuant to 28 U.......