Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Eddie Lee Taylor

United States v. Eddie Lee Taylor, 482 F.2d 1376 (4th Cir. 1973)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-08-29
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “ [C]ircumstantial ‘evidence may support a verdict of guilty, even though it does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.’”

Citator

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

Cited by
7 opinions
UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR,482 F.2d 1376(4th Cir. 1973)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. EDDIE LEE TAYLOR, APPELLANT.
No. 72-2334.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 30, 1973.
Decided August 29, 1973.
Walter W. Stout, III, Richmond, Va., on brief, for appellant.
Brian P. Gettings, U.S. Atty., and Edwin J. Gale, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., on brief for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Before WINTER, CRAVEN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Eddie Lee Taylor appeals from his conviction, on a plea of not guilty, after a trial by jury, of receiving, retaining and concealing stolen United States Postal Money Orders in violation of18 U.S.C. § 641. Taylor complains that the government's evidence against him was insufficient to support the jury's finding of guilty. We find no merit in this contention and therefore affirm.

[2] The standard in this Circuit is that a guilty verdict "must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the government,Page 1377to support the findings of guilt." United States v. Sherman,421 F.2d 198,199(4 Cir. 1970). Contrary to Taylor's belief, it is also well settled in this Circuit that circumstantial "evidence may support a verdict of guilty, even though it does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence." United States v. Chappell,353 F.2d 83,84(4 Cir. 1965).

[3] Applying these standards, we cannot agree that the evidence, although circumstantial, was insufficient to sustain Taylor's conviction. An examination of the transcript of the trial indicates that there was substantial evidence from which the jury could have found that Taylor had possession of stolen money orders, knew that they were stolen and intended to convert them to his own use. We therefore find that this evidence established an evidentiary basis from which the jury could have concluded that the government had carried its burden of proof of all essential elements of the crime charged in the indictment.

[4] Accordingly, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgment.

[5] Affirmed.Page 112