United States v. King
| Decision Date | 17 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 15361.,15361. |
| Citation | 326 F.2d 415 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Samuel KING, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Arthur C. Plate (Court Appointed), Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
David E. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., J. H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., on brief, for appellee.
Before MILLER, Circuit Judge, and WEINMAN and KAESS, District Judges.
Appellant, Joe Samuel King, was indicted jointly with William Lynn Smith for passing a counterfeit $100 Atlanta Federal Reserve Note with intent to defraud, in violation of the provisions of Section 472, Title 18 United States Code. He was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of 57 months.
Appellant admitted that the bill was a counterfeit and that it was passed by him, but contends that he did not know it was a counterfeit and had no intent to defraud. The naked act of possessing and passing counterfeit money without knowledge that it is counter-feit does not constitute the offense charged. There must also be intent to defraud. Marson v. United States, 203 F.2d 904, 906, C.A. 6th. He contends that the Government's evidence was insufficient to take the case to the jury on the question of intent and that the District Judge erred in overruling his motion for acquittal at the conclusion of the Government's case.
Direct proof of intent is not necessary. It may be inferred from the acts of the parties and is a question of fact. to be determined from all the circumstances. Battjes v. United States, 172 F.2d 1, 5, C.A. 6th. Appellant contends that he obtained the bill which was passed from his co-defendant in payment of a $50 debt. But there was evidence that he received two counterfeit $100 bills from Smith and that he passed one in one cafe and was in the process of passing the other one in another cafe when "the law walked in." At that time he grabbed the bill and threw it toward the floor. There was also evidence that the bill was undersized, off color and a bad looking bill.
We are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Slone, 78-5729
...8 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 743, from an attempt to destroy or abandon counterfeit currency when capture is imminent, United States v. King, 6 Cir., 1964, 326 F.2d 415; from furtive conduct by the defendant, United States v. Forzano, 2 Cir., 1951, 190 F.2d 687; and from knowledge that the bill h......
-
U.S. v. Sink
...743 (8th Cir. 1950), as is an attempt to destroy or abandon counterfeit currency when capture is imminent, See e. g., United States v. King, 326 F.2d 415 (6th Cir. 1964); United States v. Kelley, 186 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. United States v. Haggins, supra at 1013. There is no doubt that Grim was......
-
U.S. v. Mousli
...that the question of guilty knowledge and especially intent to defraud may be shown by other than direct evidence); United States v. King, 326 F.2d 415 (6th Cir.1964) (holding that direct proof of intent to defraud is unnecessary, and that it may be inferred from the act of the parties and ......
-
United States v. Browning
...1135; United States v. Brown, 348 F.2d 661 (2d Cir. 1965). 2 Price v. United States, 70 F.2d 467 (4th Cir. 1934); United States v. King, 326 F.2d 415 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 377 U.S. 957, 84 S.Ct. 1637, 12 L.Ed.2d 500; United States v. Forzano, 190 F.2d 687 (2d Cir. 1951); United Stat......