Cutting v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Cutting v. United States

169 F.2d 951, 12 Alaska 143, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2280

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 17, 1948

Docket11513

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 169 F.2d 951 (Cutting v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cutting v. United States, 169 F.2d 951, 12 Alaska 143, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2280 (9th Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

HEALY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was indicted and convicted of the larceny of an electric range, the propeity of the United States. On the appeal he contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, (2) that the admission of a certain exhibit offered by the government was reversible error, and (3) that appellant’s constitutional right of privacy was invaded by government officers in the search of a building and the seizure therein of the stolen property.

As respects the evidence, the principal argument is that it was insufficient to establish ownership of the range in the United States at the time of the taking. The argument is wholly without merit. An inspection of the record discloses that the evidence on the point of ownership was full and complete, as was also the showing of appellant’s guilt of the offense charged.

The exhibit said to have been improperly admitted was an unsigned memorandum receipt issued to one Captain Coleman, an Army officer, to whom the range in question had been issued at an earlier time. Coleman had obtained the receipt on the occasion of his turning back the property to the Post Engineer at Ladd Field. The receipt was used by the witness merely as a record of a past recollection and was properly admitted in evidence in connection with his testimony concerning a matter within his own knowledge.

The stolen range was admitted in evidence over objection that it had been unlawfully searched for and seized by officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. No search warrant had been obtained. The facts were that the range had been stored in a small building located immediately to the rear of the house of one Fowler in Anchorage. Appellant himself lived at another place in that city. The FBI agents were given permission by Fowler and his wife to search this building and to take the property away. Fowler himself testified to that effect. There is nothing of substance in the point that the search or seizure was unlawful.

Other errors are assigned but they are not argued and they appear to be of no merit.

Affirmed.

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

HEALY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was indicted and convicted of the larceny of an electric range, the propeity of the United States. On the appeal he contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, (2) that the admission of a certain exhibit offered by the government was reversible error, and (3) that appellant’s constitutional right of privacy was invaded by government officers in the search of a building and the seizure therein of the stolen property.

As respects the evidence, the principal argument is that it was insufficient to establish ownership of the range in the United States at the time of the taking. The argument is wholly without merit. An inspection of the record discloses that the evidence on the point of ownership was full and complete, as was also the showing of appellant’s guilt of the offense charged.

The exhibit said to have been improperly admitted was an unsigned memorandum receipt issued to one Captain Coleman, an Army officer, to whom the range in question had been issued at an earlier time. Coleman had obtained the receipt on the occasion of his turning back the property to the Post Engineer at Ladd Field. The receipt was used by the witness merely as a record of a past recollection and was properly admitted in evidence in connection with his testimony concerning a matter within his own knowledge.

The stolen range was admitted in evidence over objection that it had been unlawfully searched for and seized by officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. No search warrant had been obtained. The facts were that the range had been stored in a small building located immediately to the rear of the house of one Fowler in Anchorage. Appellant himself lived at another place in that city. The FBI agents were given permission by Fowler and his wife to search this building and to take the property away. Fowler himself testified to that effect. There is nothing of substance in the point that the search or seizure was unlawful.

Other errors are assigned but they are not argued and they appear to be of no merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 F.2d 951, 12 Alaska 143, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutting-v-united-states-ca9-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack