United States v. Martin, 16904.

• Decision Date: 25 April 1967
• Docket Number: No. 16904.,16904.
• Citation: 375 F.2d 956
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Lee MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

375 F.2d 956 (1967)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Lee MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16904.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 25, 1967.

Thomas E. Watts, Jr., (Court Appointed) Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.

Rollie L. Woodall, Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and CELEBREZZE and PECK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Samuel Lee Martin, was indicted and found guilty of transporting a 1955 automobile from Oak Grove, Kentucky, to Montgomery County, Tennessee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (Dyer Act). The essential facts are: In July, 1964, Lennis Hugley, Jr., was stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky; on July 20th, Hugley left his 1955 automobile in a parking lot outside the army camp. When he returned several days later to pick up his automobile, he found it had been stolen. The automobile was subsequently found in Montgomery County, Tennessee. Appellant was indicted, along with two others, for violation of the Dyer Act.¹ The two accomplices plead guilty, and testified for the Government. A jury found the Appellant guilty, and this appeal followed.

The only meritorious question presented on this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a finding that the stolen automobile was transported by the Appellant across the Kentucky State lines, so as to sustain a conviction for violation of the Dyer Act.

To obtain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2312, the Government must prove three essential elements: (1) that the vehicle was stolen, (2) that it was transported in interstate commerce, (3) that such transportation was with knowledge that the vehicle was stolen. On each element, the Government must present substantial evidence from which a jury might properly find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Maguire v. United States, 358 F.2d 442 (C.A.10, 1966); Sadler v. United States, 303 F.2d 664 (C.A.10, 1962).

Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. It is evidence affording a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.

A review of the evidence relating to the interstate transportation of the stolen vehicle clearly shows that the Government failed to present substantial evidence from which the jury might have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle was transported from Kentucky to Tennessee.

Hugley testified that he parked his car in Martin's Standard Oil Station, at the far north end of the lot. The station lot is located on Route U.S. 41A, across from Gate Number 4 at Fort Campbell. The station lot is enclosed by a fence which runs north and south. The Kentucky-Tennessee State boundary line runs somewhere through the lot. Hugley parked his car at the north end of the lot, toward Kentucky. Hugley testified that according to an engineering maps, Gate 4 is located on the State line. However, the map did not show how the line extended across Route 41A. Hugley did not know where the State line crossed the Standard Oil parking lot. On cross-examination he testified:

"Q. So you just assumed that your car was in Kentucky. Is that correct?

"A. Right, sir. * * *

"Q. Mr. Hugley, you cannot state, can you of your own personal knowledge, that the car was parked in Kentucky?

"Mr. Woodall: Your Honor, he has already stated he can state it.

"The Court: No he hasn\'t. * * *"

One of the accomplices, Eads, testified there was a sign south of the Standard Oil station which said "you have entered Kentucky". Eads did not know where the State line crossed the parking lot.

He testified:

"Q. All right, Mr. Eads, now, I think you testified that you knew that this car was up in Kentucky. Is that right?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. How did you know it was in Kentucky?

"A. Because we had to cross a state line.

"Q. How did you know where the state line was?

"A. Because there is a sign.

"Q. A sign right on the state line?

"A. There is a sign saying that you are now entering Kentucky or either * * *

"Q. (Interposing) Do you know of your own knowledge whether that sign is on the state line?

"A. Not of my own knowledge, no sir."

Patrolman South testified the station building was in Kentucky, but he was not familiar with what boundaries the parking lot covered.

Appellant Martin testified he had pleaded guilty to stealing a car in 1957 from the same lot. As to the first theft, he admitted he had transported the car from Kentucky to Tennessee. However, he first obtained possession of the first car in front of the station, which all of the witnesses state is in...