Wood v. United States, 18232.

• Decision Date: 19 October 1960
• Docket Number: No. 18232.,18232.
• Citation: 283 F.2d 4
• Parties: Kenneth Wilson WOOD and Wayne C. Walton, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

283 F.2d 4 (1960)

Kenneth Wilson WOOD and Wayne C. Walton, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18232.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

October 19, 1960.

Clyde W. Atkinson, Walter J. Smith, Tallahassee, Fla., Zach H. Douglas, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellants.

Edward L. Stahley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wilfred C. Varn, U. S. Atty., Tallahassee, Fla., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge.

Appellants and four others charged as conspirators were convicted of a conspiracy to transport, possess, sell and transfer distilled spirits contrary to the provisions of the revenue laws and to have in their possession or custody a still without compliance with the statute. Only the named appellants appeal from their conviction and sentence.

Appellants rely entirely on their contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. We conclude that this contention must prevail on the basis of the record before us.

It is, of course, well recognized that a conspiracy to violate a federal statute may be shown to exist among several persons without the necessity of showing that each person had actual knowledge of the actions of each of his co-conspirators. This rule applies, however, only where there is sufficient evidence to permit the jury to find, in a circumstantial case, that the parties sought to be charged acted in some manner with respect to the criminal offense as to warrant the inference that there was an agreement among them to carry it out. An illustration of this kind of action appears in the per curiam opinion of this Court in Parmenter and Lincoln v. United States, 5 Cir., 279 F.2d 151, in which we said:

"As to Lincoln\'s point, we need only say that we have carefully read the testimony to which our attention has been called in the briefs, touching on Lincoln\'s actions. We conclude that the evidence clearly shows that his relations with Parmenter and others charged in the indictment and the manner in which he knew exactly how to fit into the part he was to play in receiving and paying for the final load of whiskey on terms which must have been the subject of prior agreement, spoke eloquently and convincingly of an agreement with Parmenter to be an important actor in the illegal possession and sale of the nontaxpaid whiskey. No more was needed to warrant submission of the case to the jury. Its verdict must therefore be sustained."

See also Badon v. United States, 5 Cir., 269 F.2d 75, 79. In that case we said:

"A jury may reasonably infer the existence of an agreement and joint responsibility of a

...