Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Hardeman v. United States

163 F.2d 21

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1947-05-26
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Appellant was convicted of larceny on evidence that was entirely circumstantial. On this appeal we are asked to reverse on 'the ground that the eyidence is insufficient to support the verdict of the jury. But the rule in such cases is that we may not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses. It is enough if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

Citator

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

Cited by
5 opinions
HARDEMAN v. UNITED STATES,163 F.2d 21(D.C. Cir. 1947)
HARDEMAN v. UNITED STATES.
No. 9289.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 1947.
Decided May 26, 1947.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

Conrad V. Hardeman was convicted of larceny and he appeals.

Affirmed.
Mr. Curtis P. Mitchell, of Washington, D.C., submitted on the brief for appellant.

Mr. John D. Lane, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, U.S. Atty., Arthur J. McLaughlin, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Sidney S. Sachs, Asst. U.S. Atty., all of Washington, D.C., were on the brief, submitted on the brief for appellee.

Mr. Edward M. Curran, U.S. Atty., of Washington, D.C., at the time the record was filed, also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of larceny on evidence that was entirely circumstantial. On this appeal we are asked to reverse on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of the jury. But the rule in such cases is that we may not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses. It is enough if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury. Glasser v. United States, 1942,315 U.S. 60,80,62 S.Ct. 457,86 L.Ed. 680.

Here the crime was larceny, and while it is true that the evidence is entirely circumstantial, there is undisputed testimony that the crime was committed, that appellant was in the apartment room of the victim while he slept and at the time of the loss; that appellant was badly in need of money before the larceny and was in possession of a considerable sum immediately thereafter. It is also true that his explanation of the means whereby he got this money is most unconvincing.

The jury heard the witnesses testify and reached the conclusion that appellant was the thief, and in the circumstances it was for them and not for us to decide that question.

Affirmed.Page 22