Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Najjar v. United States

152 F.2d 965

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1946-01-12
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM. No trial error is assigned. No motion for acquittal was made. We have, however, examined the evidence to see if it. supports the verdict on the question whether the appellant knew the goods he was buying from an automobile at the back door of his store were stolen. He proved former good character, made no attempt to conceal the goods, or the addresses, and did not even remove many from the containers, but exhibited them openly for sale in his store.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Najjar v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
NAJJAR v. UNITED STATES,152 F.2d 965(5th Cir. 1946)
NAJJAR v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11377.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 12, 1946.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia; E. Marvin Underwood, Judge.

Ellis Najjar was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and he appeals.

Affirmed.
Frank A. Doughman, H.A. Allen, and A.L. Henson, all of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

M. Neil Andrews, U.S. Atty., and J. Ellis Mundy, both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
No trial error is assigned. No motion for acquittal was made. We have, however, examined the evidence to see if it supports the verdict on the question whether the appellant knew the goods he was buying from an automobile at the back door of his store were stolen. He proved former good character, made no attempt to conceal the goods, or the addresses, and did not even remove many from the containers, but exhibited them openly for sale in his store. He cooperated with the investigator in identifying and restoring them. The jury might well have doubted guilty knowledge. But on the other hand there were several purchases of several kinds of goods from one unknown person, the goods being plainly addressed to several different consignees; and sold, though undamaged, much below market price. Appellant also at first named another as the seller. The jury could infer guilty knowledge.

Judgment affirmed.Page 966Page 267