United States v. Jones

• Decision Date: 11 January 1965
• Docket Number: No. 9479.,9479.
• Citation: 340 F.2d 599
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ottis Mayo JONES, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

340 F.2d 599 (1965)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ottis Mayo JONES, Appellant.

No. 9479.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued January 6, 1965.

Decided January 11, 1965.

Richard G. Joynt, Richmond, Va. (Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell & Gibson, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.

William Medford, U. S. Atty. (Joseph R. Cruciani, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, BOREMAN, Circuit Judge, and HUTCHESON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Jones, whose residence was Baltimore, Maryland, was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2312 of transporting in interstate commerce two stolen automobiles, one from Kalamazoo, Michigan, and one from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Charlotte, North Carolina, knowing each car to have been stolen. Possession of each car had been originally acquired by Jones by virtue of a rental agreement from a car rental agency, one in Kalamazoo and one in New Orleans. Certain misrepresentations were made by Jones at the time the agreements were executed, particularly with reference to his occupation and the name and fictitious address of his alleged employer.

The theory of the prosecution was that at the time Jones obtained possession of these cars, it was his intent to convert each to his own use;¹ that all of the ensuing circumstances and course of conduct of the defendant constituted sufficient proof of such intent.

Two days after renting the second car, the defendant appeared in Huntsville, Alabama, gave a false address as his Alabama residence and, upon this false representation, secured an Alabama title and Alabama license tags for each car. Seven days later he appeared in Ohio and, with false bills of sale and the Alabama titles, secured an Ohio title and license tags for each car. The evidence disclosed that a short time later Jones was found operating a real estate agency under an assumed name in Charlotte, North Carolina, that he was then and there in possession of both cars and sold one of them at a car auction sale for $1400.

The principal assignment of error is that the court, in its charge, inadvertently told the jury that it was the government's contention that after the second car had been procured in New Orleans, the cars next appeared in Madison County, Alabama, where Jones secured the titles and license plates. While there was positive testimony that Jones was in Alabama and personally applied for the titles and licenses, there was no direct evidence that the cars were there nor was it, in fact, the prosecution's contention that the cars were actually in Alabama at the time the titles were procured. Defendant contends that his defense was based largely upon the fact that the Government could present no...