Williams v. United States

• Decision Date: 04 January 1960
• Docket Number: No. 16208.,16208.
• Citation: 272 F.2d 40
• Parties: Hubert Woodrow WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

272 F.2d 40 (1959)

Hubert Woodrow WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 16208.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

December 8, 1959.

Rehearing Denied January 4, 1960.

William J. Gilwee, G. Dennis Sullivan, Russell S. Jones, and Sullivan, Mann, Jones & Sullivan, Kansas City, Mo., filed brief for appellant.

J. Whitfield Moody, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo. (Edward L. Scheufler, U. S. Atty., and Joseph L. Flynn, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., were on the brief), for appellee.

Before WOODROUGH and MATTHES, Circuit Judges, and MICKELSON, District Judge.

MICKELSON, District Judge.

Defendant appeals from judgment and sentence imposed upon his conviction by a jury upon a one-count indictment charging that on or about the 18th day of March, 1958, at Kansas City, Missouri, in the Western Division of the Western District of Missouri, Williams did knowingly, wilfully and feloniously cause to be transported in interstate commerce from Kansas City, Missouri, to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, a stolen motor vehicle, namely, a 1956 Ford, bearing a certain serial number, he knowing the same to have been stolen, in violation of Sec. 2312, Title 18 U.S.C.A.

During the trial of the case before the jury, the government presented evidence, over the objection of defendant's counsel, as to the theft of several other automobiles by the defendant and his employees, Parks and Tignor, occurring between the time of the theft (which was between July 31st and September 18, 1956) of the 1956 Ford described in the indictment and the date of its transportation in interstate commerce. At the close of the government's case, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal, which was overruled. The defendant presented his case, though not taking the stand to testify himself, and at the close of his case he renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, which was again overruled. Defendant's counsel then moved the court to strike all testimony relating to the theft of cars other than the car the defendant was charged with transporting. The case was submitted to the jury and the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for a term of three years. Defendant urges as the sole ground of reversible error, the admission of the testimony and evidence relating to the theft of these other cars.

The witness Parks testified that he and the defendant stole the indictment car from a new car dealer at Sarcoxie, Missouri. The car was brought to Kansas City, Missouri, where it was used by the defendant and Parks as though both were the owners. The car was later involved in an accident and was repaired by substituting a salvaged body for the damaged one. Before the accident, it had been a two-door car. After its repair it became a four-door vehicle. The body which was placed on it was purchased by the defendant from Maczuk, Inc., near New Haven, Missouri. Following the repair of the car, Parks and Tignor changed the serial number thereon to match the body which was purchased by the defendant from Maczuk, Inc., and applied a two-tone paint job.

In the forepart of the year 1958, the Kansas City police department began investigating the activities of the defendant and his employees, and inasmuch as they had uncovered another stolen automobile, known as the "Willoughby" car, the defendant began discussions with Parks and Tignor about leaving Kansas City, and on or about the day alleged in the indictment it was decided by the three of them to go to Brownsville, Texas. The defendant then took Parks and Tignor to where the stolen Ford in question was parked, and Parks and Tignor, with Parks driving, proceeded in the stolen car to Brownsville, Texas. The defendant was to join them a few days later. Before he joined them, and as they were running short of money, they called defendant and he forwarded them the sum of $40 by telegraph, and directed them to meet him in Oklahoma City. They met the defendant in Oklahoma City a few days later, and the stolen car was placed in storage and there later recovered by the authorities.

At the time of the trial of this case, both Parks and Tignor were serving sentences for transportation in interstate commerce of a stolen motor vehicle. Both of them were called as government witnesses. The witness Parks testified to the theft by him and the defendant of the indictment car, and both he and the witness Tignor testified as to the arrangement for the transportation of the indictment car to Oklahoma City. The government proved in considerable detail the theft and handling of three other automobiles by the defendant and his employees Parks and Tignor.

As was stated in Fairbanks v. United States, 1955, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 226 F.2d 251, 253:

"The general rule is that upon the trial of an accused person the prosecution may not introduce evidence of another offense wholly independent of the one charged. However, there are many well established exceptions to this rule, so numerous that it has been said that it is difficult to determine which is the more extensive, the doctrine or the acknowledged exceptions. This Court has admitted evidence of

...