United States v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 05 June 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73-1665.,73-1665.
• Citation: 497 F.2d 1149
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James H. THOMAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

497 F.2d 1149 (1974)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James H. THOMAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 73-1665.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued February 7, 1974.

Decided June 5, 1974.

Miles J. Purcell, Saginaw, Mich. (Court-appointed), on brief, for defendant-appellant.

Ralph B. Guy, U. S. Atty., James W. Russell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Bay City, Mich., on brief, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, PECK, Circuit Judge, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted on two counts involving illegal possession of a sawed-off shotgun, in violation of Sections 5861(c) and (i), Title 26, United States Code. His chief argument here is that there was insufficient evidence to justify a jury in finding that he possessed the weapon.

The facts as found by the jury were as follows. Appellant's sister had lived in her apartment for about a month when she moved out on April 30, 1971. While she lived there, appellant had access to her apartment, and had in fact visited a few times. On the day mentioned, Thomas came to her house with "a couple boys," to help her move. Later that day, after she had moved out, the manager of the apartment complex found, in the course of inspecting the apartment, a sawed-off shotgun in a cupboard. The apartment had been locked when the manager entered.

A few days later, appellant returned to the complex and declared that he had left something in his sister's house. When admitted to the apartment, he looked into the cupboard where the gun had been found (and from which it had already been removed and given to the sheriff). He said that he was looking for his gun.

Appellant's sister was the first occupant of that apartment, and it had been inspected before she moved in. She testified that she had never seen the gun in question.

Citing the facts that he was never seen with the weapon, and that others were also in the apartment on April 30, 1971, Thomas argues that the verdict should be overturned as contrary to the great weight of the evidence. He is contending, in essence, that a rational jury could not find beyond a reasonable doubt, on the facts outlined, that the shotgun was his, that he brought it to the house and placed it (or caused another to bring it to the house and/or place it) in the cupboard. We cannot so hold.

On a criminal appeal, the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the government, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680, and furthermore, every inference from the evidence presented that can reasonably be drawn in favor of the government must be so drawn. United States v. Wolfenbarger, 426 F.2d 992, 994 (C.A.6), United States v. Ayotte, 385 F.2d 988 (C.A.6), vacated on other grounds, 394 U.S. 310, 89 S.Ct. 1163, 22 L.Ed.2d 297. Certainly it is not unreasonable to infer Thomas' possession of the gun from the facts that he had been in the house on the day it was found, that he returned later to claim it (calling it "my gun"), and that it was...