United States v. Wolosyn
| Decision Date | 25 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 23225.,23225. |
| Citation | 411 F.2d 550 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John V. WOLOSYN, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert Hirsh (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.
Morton Silver (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Edward E. Davis, U. S. Atty., Jo Ann D. Diamos, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
Before BROWNING and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and GRAY,* District Judge.
Appellant, John V. Wolosyn, was convicted after a jury trial of four counts of interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles in violation of the Dyer Act (18 U.S.C. § 2312), and sentenced to three years on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. He now appeals. We affirm.
Appellant claims four grounds for reversal of his conviction. First, he claims the evidence presented by the government was insufficient to sustain his conviction under Rodgers v. United States, 402 F.2d 830 (9 Cir. 1968). In Rodgers the only evidence introduced by the government was the defendant's recent possession of a stolen car and an apparently valid title presented when he sold the car. The court there held the evidence was insufficient to justify reliance on the inferences which may be drawn from unexplained possession of a recently stolen car in another state.
The instant case is clearly distinguishable from the situation involved in Rodgers. Here there was evidence that appellant, a used car dealer in Ohio who usually dealt in "junk" cars, possessed and sold, on four separate occasions, four late model Cadillacs in Tucson, Arizona; all four had been recently stolen from the area around Youngstown, Ohio, close to where appellant operated. Appellant also possessed stolen and fraudulent "titles" for the cars; each car had a false number on the doorpost which matched the number on the "title." In light of this and the other evidence in the case, we believe the trial court properly instructed the jury that it could infer from the evidence of unexplained possession in one state, of a recently stolen motor vehicle from another state, that appellant transported the vehicle in interstate commerce and knew it was stolen at the time of transportation. Jones v. United States, 378 F.2d 340 (9 Cir. 1967). We hold the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; appellant's contention is without merit.
Second, appellant contends the trial court erred in not excluding the evidence from a police report as hearsay. The police report was a regular business record and was used for the limited purpose of confirming the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Haynes
...admitted is irrelevant and not restricted to the particular trait or traits involved in the crime charged. Cf. United States v. Wolosyn, 411 F.2d 550, 551 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. Malinowski, 472 F.2d 850, 859 (3rd Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 970, 93 S.Ct. 2164, 36 L.Ed.2d 6......
-
U.S. v. Smith
...(1969); United States v. Halperin, 5 Cir., 441 F.2d 612 (1971); United States v. Martin, 5 Cir., 434 F.2d 275 (1970); United States v. Wolosyn, 9 Cir., 411 F.2d 550 (1969); United States v. Graham, 6 Cir., 391 F.2d 439, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 941, 89 S.Ct. 307, 21 L.Ed.2d 278 (1968); Bridge......
-
Lepire v. Motor Vehicles Division
...States v. Parker, 491 F.2d 517 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 989, 94 S.Ct. 2396, 40 L.Ed.2d 767 (1974); United States v. Wolosyn, 411 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1969); Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc., 65 Cal.2d 114, 52 Cal.Rptr. 561, 416 P.2d 793 (1966); People v. Aguilar, 16 Cal.App.3d 1......
-
U.S. v. Sims
...rule in favor of the admission of police reports. While limited portions of police reports were admissible (United States v. Wolosyn, 411 F.2d 550, 551 (9th Cir. 1969)), statements in the reports which were attributed to other persons were generally excluded. United States v. Smith, 521 F.2......
-
Authentication
...that company during discovery was supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence to be admitted into evidence. United States v. Wolosyn , 411 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1969). A police report is admissible as a business record to prove the date of theft. But see Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc ., 6......
-
Authentication
...that company during discovery was supported by su൶cient circumstantial evidence to be admitted into evidence. United States v. Wolosyn , 411 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1969). A police report is admissible as a business record to prove the date of theft. But see Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc ., 65 ......
-
Authentication
...that company during discovery was supported by su൶cient circumstantial evidence to be admitted into evidence. United States v. Wolosyn , 411 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1969). A police report is admissible as a business record to prove the date of theft. But see Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc ., 65 ......
-
Authentication
...that company during discovery was supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence to be admitted into evidence. United States v. Wolosyn , 411 F.2d 550 (9th Cir. 1969). A police report is admissible as a business record to prove the date of theft. But see Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc ., 6......