Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

412 F.2d 856

Docket No. 38-69.

United States v. Freeman

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided July 15, 1969.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1969-07-15

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1969

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Robert Charles Maguire v. United States of America, Charles Russel Giles v. United States · LaConte v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1969-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1John E. Green, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Andrew Potter, U. S. Atty., of counsel, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

¶2Victor W. Pryor, Jr., Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant-appellant.

¶3Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and TUTTLE* and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6This appellant complains of his conviction and sentence on two grounds. First, he argues that the charge of the trial court “allowed the jury to presume that the Defendant had stolen,the truck in Texas and transported it to Oklahoma without any evidence of that fact being introduced”. The court’s charge, unex-cepted to by the Defendant contained the accepted charge as to inferences which can be drawn from possession of property recently stolen, Maguire v. United States, 10 Cir. 1966, 358 F.2d 442, and LaConte v. United States, 10 Cir. 1964, 330 F.2d 700. There was ample evidence to show that appellant was in possession of an automobile in Oklahoma recently stolen in Texas.

¶7This statement also answers the second contention of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.

¶8The judgment is affirmed.

/412/f2d/856 · .json · Public domain