United States v. Morgan, 72-1385.
| Citation | 469 F.2d 83 |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1385.,72-1385. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Lee MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Charles C. Burch, Memphis, Tenn., on brief for defendant-appellant.
Thomas F. Turley, Jr., U. S. Atty., Glen Reid, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Memphis, Tenn., on brief for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CELEBREZZE, PECK and KENT, Circuit Judges.
The defendant-appellant was convicted under both counts of a two-count indictment charging that he concealed and possessed property stolen from an interstate shipment of freight in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 659.
In this appeal he raises the issues as to whether the jury's verdict of guilty is supported by substantial evidence and whether the concurrent five-year sentences were excessive. Relying upon dicta contained in some decisions of this Court the appellant asserts that the test of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence is whether or not the jury could reasonably find that that evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.
Despite any statements to the contrary in any opinion signed by the writer of this opinion this Court adheres to the rule stated in United States v. Prieur, 429 F.2d 1237, 1238 (6th Cir. 1970):
"Where evidence is circumstantial, the same test applies and it is not necessary that such evidence remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt."
The statute under which the appellant was convicted provides for a fine of not more than $5,000, or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. Since the sentence imposed was well within the maximum limits provided by law we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the District Judge. United States v. Dudley, 436 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir. 1971).
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Craven
...evidence. It is not necessary that such evidence remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. United States v. Morgan, 469 F. 2d 83 (6th Cir. 1972); United States v. Bishop, 437 F.2d 97 (6th Cir. 1971); United States v. Prieur, 429 F.2d 1237 (6th Cir. 1970); United States v. Bra......
-
United States v. Hall
...or circumstantial evidence, and such evidence need not "remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt." United States v. Morgan , 469 F.2d 83, 83 (6th Cir. 1972) (quoting United States v. Prieur , 429 F.2d 1237, 1238 (6th Cir. 1970) ). Intent to distribute may be inferred from a l......
-
United States v. Hall
...... We. review sentencing decisions "for both procedural and. substantive reasonableness." United States v. Morgan , 687 F.3d 688, 693 (6th Cir. 2012). Procedural. reasonableness mandates that a court "properly calculate. the guidelines range, treat ......
-
United States v. Hall
...or circumstantial evidence, and such evidence need not "remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt." United States v. Morgan, 469 F.2d 83, 83 (6th Cir. 1972) (quoting United States v. Prieur, 429 F.2d 1237, 1238 (6th Cir. 1970)). Intent to distribute may be inferred from a larg......