Frank Churico v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Frank Churico v. United States

287 F.2d 666, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5042

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 1961

Docket18471

StatusPublished

This text of 287 F.2d 666 (Frank Churico 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

Frank Churico v. United States, 287 F.2d 666, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5042 (5th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This conviction of violation of Title 18, Section 2312, U.S.C. prohibiting interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle must be affirmed. The only ground in support of the appellant’s motion for bill of particulars was that the information requested was sought to prevent surprise. We think the court’s refusal to grant the motion was within his discretionary power.

*667 As to the sufficiency of the evidence, it appears that the car had been stolen from Miami, Florida. It was found in Waycross, Georgia, some 600 miles distant. It was first seen there on a day when appellant arrived there saying that he had hitchhiked from Miami. His finger prints were found in the automobile and he was seen several times in the vicinity of the automobile before being arrested. In the absence of any explanation as to why he had ever been in the automobile with which he had no possible legal connection, we conclude that this evidence was sufficient to justify a finding of guilt. The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This conviction of violation of Title 18, Section 2312, U.S.C. prohibiting interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle must be affirmed. The only ground in support of the appellant’s motion for bill of particulars was that the information requested was sought to prevent surprise. We think the court’s refusal to grant the motion was within his discretionary power.

*667 As to the sufficiency of the evidence, it appears that the car had been stolen from Miami, Florida. It was found in Waycross, Georgia, some 600 miles distant. It was first seen there on a day when appellant arrived there saying that he had hitchhiked from Miami. His finger prints were found in the automobile and he was seen several times in the vicinity of the automobile before being arrested. In the absence of any explanation as to why he had ever been in the automobile with which he had no possible legal connection, we conclude that this evidence was sufficient to justify a finding of guilt. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 F.2d 666, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-churico-v-united-states-ca5-1961.