United States v. Julian, 26604.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26604.,26604. |
| Citation | 440 F.2d 779 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Tony JULIAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Mary Anne Peters (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.
Stanley L. Patchell, (argued) Asst. U. S. Atty., Richard K. Burke, U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CARTER, WRIGHT and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
Julian was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2312, transportation of a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce, knowing it to have been stolen. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury verdict and that, after evidence of his insanity had been offered, the government failed to prove the fact of his sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
We affirm.
Julian left Memphis, Tennessee, about April 21, 1970, in a 1969 Chevrolet automobile on a trip to California. He and a hitchhiker, Richard White, arrived in Dallas, Texas, on Sunday morning, April 26, and stopped at a motel.
White went to sleep and when he woke in the afternoon, Julian was gone. Shortly he returned with a 1970 Dodge automobile. In response to a query from White, Julian assured him that the vehicle was not stolen. They left Dallas that night and were stopped by an Arizona highway patrolman the next day for speeding.
Having no registration certificate, Julian said the car belonged to his mother and gave the false name of Hahn. When it was determined that the car had been stolen, Julian was arrested, warned of his constitutional rights, and stated that an unidentified homosexual man had given him the Dodge car to drive to Tucson, where it would be delivered to the owner.
The true owner of the Dodge car last saw it in Dallas on Saturday, April 25, in his dealer's storage lot. It bore no license plates. When Julian drove it into Arizona and was stopped, it had Tennessee plates. From his possession of a recently stolen vehicle, the jury could reasonably infer that Julian knew the car was stolen, McAbee v. United States, 434 F.2d 361 (9th Cir. 1970), in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. Here there was none, and the evidence was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to support a verdict of guilty.
On the insanity issue, appellant offered some evidence of pre-existing mental illness. His psychiatric expert expressed the opinion that Julian was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the alleged offense, that he would not have known the significance and consequences of his act nor be able to tell whether they were right or wrong, but that he was presently greatly improved.
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holmes v. Laird
... ... Melvin LAIRD, as Secretary of the United States Department of Defense, et al ... No. 71-1518 ... United ... ...
-
State v. Nuetzel
...that the accused was sane beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Monroe, 552 F.2d 860, 864 (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. Julian, 440 F.2d 779, 780 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Shackelford, 494 F.2d 67, 75 (9th Cir. 1974). A close and thorough examination of the evidence adduce......
-
United States v. Shackelford, 73-1053.
...reasonable men would not necessarily retain a reasonable doubt about defendant's sanity at the time of the crime. United States v. Julian, 440 F.2d 779, 780 (9th Cir. 1971). A jury after being properly instructed on the law regarding sanity, "may, of course, reject expert opinion if it find......
-
United States v. Cooper
...reasonable man would necessarily retain a reasonable doubt about the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense. United States v. Julian, 440 F.2d 779 (9th Cir. 1971). The defense did not claim that Cooper suffered from a mental illness sufficiently severe to satisfy the test for legal i......