United States v. Leggett, 12581.
| Decision Date | 01 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 12581.,12581. |
| Citation | 269 F.2d 35 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles E. LEGGETT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Charles A. Bellows, Chicago, Ill. (Paul C. Ross, Jason Ernest Bellows, Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for defendant appellant.
Robert Tieken, U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill. (D. Arthur Connelly, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee.
Before SCHNACKENBERG, PARKINSON and CASTLE, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-appellant Charles E. Leggett, pleading not guilty, was tried to the court on Counts I and II of a three-count indictment. Counts I and II charged Leggett with having unlawfully transported and caused to be transported a "1957 Cadillac Convertible Automobile, Motor Number XXXX-XXXXXX," from Xenia, Ohio to Chicago, Illinois, on or about December 26, 1957 and January 20, 1958, respectively, knowing it to have been stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. Count III, dismissed on motion of the Government, charged a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2313.
The District Court found Leggett guilty on both counts and he was given a general sentence of a year and a day. This appeal followed.
Although Leggett states the contested issue to be:
"Whether the evidence introduced by the Government when viewed in a light most favorable to the government was sufficient to prove the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, of the crime charged.",
there is no question that, on December 25, 1957, he knew that the automobile named in the indictment was a stolen automobile. Thus his claim for reversal is predicated solely upon his contention that the "evidence fails to prove he transported or caused to be transported the automobile named in the indictment", and also "fails to prove that the automobile named in the indictment was the one which was transported from Xenia, Ohio, to Chicago, Illinois."
The Government does not contend that Leggett actually transported the automobile, i. e., drive it himself from Xenia, Ohio to Chicago, Illinois. Hence the core question is simply whether Leggett caused the automobile named in the indictment to be transported from Xenia, Ohio to Chicago, Illinois on the date charged in either Count I or Count II. Both counts being good and the sentence a general one, wherein the penalty imposed did not exceed that prescribed for either count, the conviction will be upheld if the evidence sufficiently sustains the conviction on either count. United States v. Cephas, 7 Cir., 1959, 263 F.2d 518, 519.
The undisputed evidence is that, on June 29, 1957, Leggett rented the automobile, named in the indictment and titled in the State of Florida, from a car rental agency in Denver, Colorado; that on November 6, 1957, Leggett forged the name of a fictitious owner of a New York State certificate of title to the subject automobile, with the motor number changed, and thereby transferred the counterfeit certificate to Anderson Motor Company, Xenia, Ohio; and that on December 16, 1957, Leggett reported the automobile stolen.
The evidence is also uncontradicted that the automobile in the photographs, Government's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, is the automobile named in the indictment; that Glenn Roger Finley, Service Manager of Anderson Motor Company, first saw that automobile in Anderson's garage in Xenia, Ohio in August, 1957; that he drove it to Chicago, Illinois on August 15, 1957 and delivered it to Leggett there; that the next time he saw that automobile was again in Anderson's garage the early part of December, 1957; that Donald Eugene Wright came to Anderson's garage in Xenia, Ohio on December 26, 1957 and drove the car to Chicago, Illinois; that he, Finley, knew it was the same car as named in the indictment because there was a crack in the windshield and the ash tray was broken and was laid open just as shown by Government's Exhibit 3.
The trial judge saw and observed the witnesses and heard their testimony. If he believed the witness Finley, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Zirpolo
...See Pereira v. United States, 202 F.2d 830, 837 (5 Cir. 1953) aff'd 347 U.S. 1, 74 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954) and United States v. Leggett, 269 F.2d 35 (7 Cir. 1959). Therefore, the motions to dismiss Counts 2 through 5 and 7 through 9 for failure to allege an essential element of the o......
-
U.S. v. Hughes
...in Levine that those who actually traveled in interstate commerce were "agents" of the defendants in the case. See also United States v. Leggett, 269 F.2d 35 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 901, 80 S.Ct. 209, 4 L.Ed.2d 156 (1959) (upholding conviction for "causing" transportation of stol......
-
U.S. v. McInnis
...the interstate transportation of stolen vehicles, even though the salesman was unaware that the automobile was stolen. United States v. Leggett, 7 Cir. 1959, 269 F.2d 35, Cert. denied, 361 U.S. 901, 80 S.Ct. 209, 4 L.Ed.2d 156. In none of those cases did the defendants physically participat......
-
Bearden v. United States
..."caused" the pilot of the aircraft to transport himself and the other victims, we would reach the same result. See United States v. Leggett, 269 F.2d 35 (7th Cir., 1959), cert. denied 361 U.S. 901, 80 S.Ct. 209, 4 L.Ed.2d 156, reh. denied 361 U.S. 941, 80 S.Ct. 367, 4 L.Ed.2d 361; Pereira v......