Harry Edison Hackworth v. United States

380 F.2d 19, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5727
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 5, 1967
Docket23598
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 380 F.2d 19 (Harry Edison Hackworth 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
Harry Edison Hackworth v. United States, 380 F.2d 19, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5727 (5th Cir. 1967).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of knowingly possessing stolen mail in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. Section 1708 (Count I); falsely altering a United States Treasury check in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. Section 495 (Count II); and fraudulently publishing the altered check in violation of 18 U.S. C.A. Section 495 (Count III).

Upon careful consideration of appellant’s four-pronged attack upon this conviction, it is clear that he cannot prevail.

Appellant’s first asserted point of error that the trial court erred by submitting the presumption of sanity to the jury is without merit. Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895).

His second asserted point of error that, as a matter of law, the evidence was insufficient under Count I of the indictment to go to the jury is likewise without merit. Smith v. United States, 343 F.2d 539 (5th Cir. 1965); Stevens v. United States, 306 F.2d 834 (5th Cir. 1962). Cf. Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 at page 115, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115 (1959).

The trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on its own motion that certain evidence was to be considered for limited purposes only. Richards v. United States, 329 F.2d 188 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 854, 85 S.Ct. 102,13 L.Ed.2d 57. As in Richards, neither was such instruction requested nor was there objection because it was not given.

The trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the-test of criminal responsibility adhered to by the Fifth Circuit. Howard v. United States, 232 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1956); Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373, 17 S.Ct. 360, 41 L.Ed. 750 (1897).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Holmquist
376 A.2d 1111 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1977)
United States v. James M. Hendrix
542 F.2d 879 (Second Circuit, 1976)
United States v. Adam Alex Lawrance
480 F.2d 688 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
United States v. James L. Harper
450 F.2d 1032 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)
United States v. Miguel Marcelo Retolaza
398 F.2d 235 (Fourth Circuit, 1968)
Pope v. United States
287 F. Supp. 214 (W.D. Texas, 1967)
Harry Edison Hackworth v. United States
380 F.2d 19 (Fifth Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
380 F.2d 19, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harry-edison-hackworth-v-united-states-ca5-1967.