Clinton Thiel Stephens v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Clinton Thiel Stephens v. United States

354 F.2d 999

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 1966

Docket22497_1

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 354 F.2d 999 (Clinton Thiel Stephens v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clinton Thiel Stephens v. United States, 354 F.2d 999 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was tried and convicted of violating the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341. ' He seeks a reversal because: (1) his motion for a judgment of acquittal made at the conclusion of the Government’s case was not granted; and (2) an alleged fatal variance between the evidence and the charge contained in the indictment.

When the motion for acquittal was made, the trial judge reserved his ruling until the conclusion of the evidence. The motion was not renewed and there was no ruling on it. In these circumstances we must consider the state of the evidence when the motion was made. The test is whether, viewing the evidence presented most favorable to the Government, a reasonable-minded jury could accept the relevant and admissible evidence as adequate and sufficient to support the conclusion of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Riggs v. United States (5 Cir. 1960) 280 F.2d 949.

As to the variance, the appellant points to the fact that the indictment charges use of the mails for delivery of a letter *1000 to a specific addressee named therein. He contends that the evidence fails to establish use of the mails, but even if it did there is a lack of proof that the letter in question was addressed to the person named in the indictment.

We are unable to agree with the contentions of the appellant and his interpretation of the evidence. We have carefully examined the evidence presented prior to the motion for acquittal and consider it sufficient to sustain the conviction. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314, 1315 (1935); Cortez v. United States (5 Cir. 1964) 328 F.2d 51; Brown v. United States (5 Cir. 1964) 328 F.2d 652; Milam v. United States (5 Cir. 1963) 322 F.2d 104; Steiner v. United States (5 Cir. 1943) 134 F.2d 931, cert. den. 319 U.S. 774, 63 S.Ct. 1439, 87 L.Ed. 1721; Corbett v. United States (8 Cir. 1937) 89 F.2d 124.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was tried and convicted of violating the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341. ' He seeks a reversal because: (1) his motion for a judgment of acquittal made at the conclusion of the Government’s case was not granted; and (2) an alleged fatal variance between the evidence and the charge contained in the indictment.

When the motion for acquittal was made, the trial judge reserved his ruling until the conclusion of the evidence. The motion was not renewed and there was no ruling on it. In these circumstances we must consider the state of the evidence when the motion was made. The test is whether, viewing the evidence presented most favorable to the Government, a reasonable-minded jury could accept the relevant and admissible evidence as adequate and sufficient to support the conclusion of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Riggs v. United States (5 Cir. 1960) 280 F.2d 949.

As to the variance, the appellant points to the fact that the indictment charges use of the mails for delivery of a letter *1000 to a specific addressee named therein. He contends that the evidence fails to establish use of the mails, but even if it did there is a lack of proof that the letter in question was addressed to the person named in the indictment.

We are unable to agree with the contentions of the appellant and his interpretation of the evidence. We have carefully examined the evidence presented prior to the motion for acquittal and consider it sufficient to sustain the conviction. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314, 1315 (1935); Cortez v. United States (5 Cir. 1964) 328 F.2d 51; Brown v. United States (5 Cir. 1964) 328 F.2d 652; Milam v. United States (5 Cir. 1963) 322 F.2d 104; Steiner v. United States (5 Cir. 1943) 134 F.2d 931, cert. den. 319 U.S. 774, 63 S.Ct. 1439, 87 L.Ed. 1721; Corbett v. United States (8 Cir. 1937) 89 F.2d 124.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 F.2d 999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clinton-thiel-stephens-v-united-states-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack