Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

431 F.2d 726

Docket No. 20109.

United States v. Wright

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Sept. 29, 1970.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1970-09-29

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1976

5 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2312

Relies on Burke v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1970-09-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*727Philip G. Kaplan, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

¶2James M. Gordon, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee; Daniel Bartlett, Jr., U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., on the brief.

¶3Before GIBSON and LAY, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Wright has been convicted of interstate transportation of a motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312.

¶6The evidence showed that the vehicle, a 1968 Cadillac, was on a used-car parking lot in Chicago, Illinois, on Saturday, September 27, 1969. It was discovered missing the following Monday morning, September 29, 1969. Defendant was apprehended driving it in St. Louis, Missouri, on October 1, 1969. He was without motor vehicle registration or driver’s license. At the time of his arrest he falsely represented himself to be the owner of the car. At trial his subsequent alibi was effectively impeached. The evidence is clearly sufficient to sustain the conviction. Cf. Burke v. United States, 388 F.2d 286 (8 Cir. 1968).

¶7On appeal error is urged as to the court’s instruction that possession of a recently stolen automobile, if not satisfactorily explained, is a circumstance from which the jury may reasonably draw the inference of knowingly transporting a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce. This standard instruction has drawn continued approval without exception from this court. See Burke v. United States, supra.

¶8Judgment affirmed.

/431/f2d/726 · .json · Public domain