United States v. Stiglets, 72-1170 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 25 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1170 Summary Calendar.,72-1170 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 463 F.2d 242 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John P. STIGLETS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Emile M. Weber, Weber & Weber, Baton Rouge, La., for defendant-appellant.
Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., John Lee Smith, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Stephen L. Dunne, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
John Percy Stiglets was charged in a three-count indictment with (i) counterfeiting 9,422 Federal Reserve notes with intent to defraud in violation of 18 U.S. C.A. § 471, (ii) possessing offset printing plates with intent to use such plates for counterfeiting in violation of 18 U. S.C.A. § 474, and (iii) possessing the counterfeit notes with intent to defraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 472. Following trial by jury in the District Court, the defendant was acquitted on counts (i) and (iii), convicted on count (ii), and sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General for a term of six years. We affirm.
The record reveals that the defendant testified in his own behalf and admitted every element of each offense other than criminal intent. His defense was based exclusively on the contention that he had printed the bills as a result of threats directed against himself, his business and members of his family.
Primarily the appellant argues that the Trial Judge incorrectly instructed the jury on the issue of intent. All of the several variations orchestrated on this theme are without merit. The Court's charge contained an explicit instruction to the effect that intent to use the plates for counterfeiting was a necessary element of the offense, and there was likewise a concise explanation of the relevance of that issue to the defense of coercion. Unlike Mann v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 319 F.2d 404, this is not a case in which the instructions were confusing, misleading, or incorrect as a matter of law. The assertion that the jury was told that mere possession was sufficient for a conviction is flatly refuted by the record.
Because each of the counts involved one transaction and virtually identical facts, the appellant argues that an acquittal on two counts automatically dictated acquittal on all counts. Without deciding the point, we may assume that the jury's verdict was logically inconsistent. However, United States v. Lloyd, 5 Cir., 1970, 425 F.2d 711, 713.
By United States v. Coley, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d 1299, 1301, we have already rejected the appellant's theory that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Evans
...inconsistency when the jury's findings on all the counts of the indictment are considered as a whole. See, e. g., United States v. Stiglets, 463 F.2d 242 (5th Cir. 1972).United States v. Fuiman, 546 F.2d 1155, 1157-58 (5th Cir. 1977).36 Gent's motions to dismiss the indictment specifically ......
-
U.S. v. Parr
...by showing general intent to defraud). This is not the criminal intent that need be proven here. Appellant cites United States v. Stiglets, 463 F.2d 242 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1039, 93 S.Ct. 521, 34 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973), a Sec. 474 case, for the proposition that an intent to d......
-
United States v. Visuna
...and ample evidentiary basis for conviction. Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932); United States v. Stiglets, 463 F.2d 242 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1039, 93 S.Ct. 521, 34 L.Ed.2d 488; United States v. Panzavecchia, 446 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1971......
-
U.S. v. Fuiman
...inconsistency when the jury's findings on all the counts of the indictment are considered as a whole. See, e. g., United States v. Stiglets, 463 F.2d 242 (5th Cir. 1972). In this case, however, Fuiman's argument seems to center on the "overt act" requirement of the federal conspiracy statut......