Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Edward Charles Davis

464 F.2d 558

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-08-02
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Appellant was convicted by a jury on a one-count indictment charging him with transporting a motorcycle in interstate commerce knowing the same to have been stolen in violation of 18 U.S. C.A.', § 2312. We affirm. The evidence was entirely sufficient to warrant the conviction. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the district court did not err in admitting evidence showing his connection with the theft of another motorcyce on the same evening as the stolen motorcycle which was the subject matter of the indictment.

Citator

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

Authority status
pending
Cited by
3 opinions
UNITED STATES v. DAVIS,464 F.2d 558(5th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDWARD CHARLES DAVIS,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-1604.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
August 2, 1972.
J. Paul Lowery, Montgomery, Ala. (Court appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Ira DeMent, U.S. Atty., D. Broward Segrest, Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Appellant was convicted by a jury on a one-count indictment charging him with transporting a motorcycle in interstate commerce knowing the same to have been stolen in violation of 18 U.S.C.A., § 2312. We affirm.

[2] The evidence was entirely sufficient to warrant the conviction. Contrary to appellant's assertion, the district court did not err in admitting evidence showing his connection with the theft of another motorcycle on the same evening as the stolen motorcycle which was the subject matter of the indictment. Evidence of other criminal acts is admissible to show knowledge and intent when accompanied, as here, with proper instructions. United States v. McGlamory, 5 Cir., 1971,441 F.2d 130,136-137; United States v. Pittman, 5 Cir., 1971,439 F.2d 906,908.

[3] Appellant also argues that the trial court committed reversible error in sustaining the government's hearsay objection to an extrajudicial statement of a co-defendant offered by a defensePage 559witness. The proffered statement was that the co-defendant (who plead guilty and testified for the government), stated some three months prior to the crime in question that he intended to steal the same motorcycle. This co-defendant was not asked about the statement during his testimony. It was not offered to impeach him. It was offered to substantiate the contention that the motorcycle was stolen by the co-defendant rather than by appellant. The invalidity of this argument is seen in the fact that appellant was charged only with transporting the stolen motorcycle. In no event did this ruling rise to the level of harmful error.

[4] Affirmed.Page 560
  1. [1] Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409. ↩