United States v. Mecham, 475-69.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 475-69.,475-69. |
| Citation | 422 F.2d 838 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald R. MECHAM, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Joseph H. Mercer, Albuquerque, N. M., for appellant.
Ronald A. Ginsberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M. (Victor R. Ortega, U. S. Atty., and John A. Babington, Asst. U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and HILL and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Mecham appeals from a jury conviction and sentence for a Dyer Act offense, 18 U.S.C. § 2312. The indictment charged that on or about March 26, 1969, Mecham, together with one Steven Osborne, transported a 1968 Dodge automobile from Nashville, Tennessee, to Tucumcari, New Mexico, knowing it to be stolen. Osborne pleaded guilty and was sentenced prior to the trial of his co-defendant. The sole issue on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the jury, inherent in its verdict, that Mecham knew the car transported was stolen.
In reviewing evidence to determine its sufficiency to support a verdict, we must view it in the light most favorabe to the prosecution. Lewis v. United States, 420 F.2d 1089 (10th Cir. 1970); United States v. Eagleston, 417 F.2d 11 (10th Cir. 1969); Mason v. United States, 408 F.2d 903 (10th Cir. 1969). The issue of criminal intent or guilty knowledge is usually a question of fact for the jury to determine, for it is seldom susceptible of proof by direct evidence. Van Nattan v. United States, 357 F.2d 161 (10th Cir. 1966); Cummings v. United States, 289 F.2d 904 (10th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 850, 82 S.Ct. 83, 7 L.Ed.2d 48.
Osborne testified that in March, 1969, he and Mecham were in the United States Army, stationed at Ft. Eustis, Virginia. Both went AWOL about one week prior to the instant offense. Osborne stated that he stole the car in question in Nashville, Tennessee, on the morning of March 26, 1969, and that he then picked up Mecham, and headed west that day. East of Memphis, Tennessee, they picked up two hitchhikers, both also AWOL from the army. The following day, March 27, the car was stopped by a police officer in Tucumcari, New Mexico, where all four occupants were found to be AWOL, and the car determined to be stolen.
During a stop at Memphis, Osborne told one of the hitchhikers that the car was stolen, and he believed that the other knew it also. But he was certain that Mecham...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bryson
...cert. den. 368 U.S. 850, 82 S.Ct. 83, 7 L.Ed.2d 48; Van Nattan v. United States, 357 F.2d 161 (Tenth Cir. 1966); and United States v. Mecham, 422 F.2d 838 (Tenth Cir. 1970). 18 U.S.C. § 1951 does not contain the word "intent" therein much less "specific intent". The Court agreed, however, t......
-
Leeper v. United States
...In reviewing evidence following jury verdict of guilty, we view it in the light most favorable to the prosecution. United States v. Mecham, 422 F.2d 838 (10th Cir. 1970); Lewis v. United States, 420 F.2d 1089 (10th Cir. Leeper and Shirley Burghart arrived at the home rented by one Ruth Kidd......
-
United States v. Downen
...post-guilty Motions for Acquittal and/or New Trial. United States v. Ramsdell, 450 F.2d 130 (10th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mecham, 422 F.2d 838 (10th Cir. 1970). The court of appeals will not sift the record in order to make an independent determination of the sufficiency of the evidenc......
-
U.S. v. Bishop
...to the Government in support of the verdict is in order. United States v. Ramsdell, 450 F.2d 130 (10th Cir. 1971); United States v. Mecham, 422 F.2d 838 (10th Cir. 1970). We do not retry the case on appeal. Our review shall consist of an outline of the facts in the worst possible manner ins......