Harry William Theriault v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Harry William Theriault v. United States

402 F.2d 792

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 1968

Docket25016_1

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 402 F.2d 792 (Harry William Theriault 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 William Theriault v. United States, 402 F.2d 792 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from conviction of five separate counts contained in two indictments charging violation of Title 18 U. S.C.A. §§ 500 and 641, appellant raises eight questions of procedural and substantive law. Specifically, he was convicted on four counts of making, forging and counterfeiting money orders and on one count of retaining and concealing stolen money orders. We have carefully reviewed the record and find each of the issues preserved for appeal to be without merit.

Contrary to the contention of appellant, the evidence was amply sufficient to support the verdict. Venue was proper. Dupoint v. United States (5th Cir., 1967), 388 F.2d 39. The evidence that appellant passed and forged other money orders was admissible to show identity and pattern. Sutton v. United States (5th Cir., 1968), 391 F.2d 592; Gifford v. United States (5th Cir., 1958), 261 F.2d 825. The search was based on probable cause and was valid from its inception. The admission into evidence of Theriault’s statement was [793]*793proper for the limited purpose of permitting a handwriting expert to compare the handwriting in dispute with this proven specimen. The identification of the defendant did not constitute •a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. The complaint that the trial court admitted a photocopy of one money order without the requisite chain of custody is not supported by the record. The District Court held that the complaint concerning prejudicial publicity had no basis in fact. We agree.

Theriault received a fair and impartial trial at the hands of the Court and jury. No error appearing, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from conviction of five separate counts contained in two indictments charging violation of Title 18 U. S.C.A. §§ 500 and 641, appellant raises eight questions of procedural and substantive law. Specifically, he was convicted on four counts of making, forging and counterfeiting money orders and on one count of retaining and concealing stolen money orders. We have carefully reviewed the record and find each of the issues preserved for appeal to be without merit.

Contrary to the contention of appellant, the evidence was amply sufficient to support the verdict. Venue was proper. Dupoint v. United States (5th Cir., 1967), 388 F.2d 39. The evidence that appellant passed and forged other money orders was admissible to show identity and pattern. Sutton v. United States (5th Cir., 1968), 391 F.2d 592; Gifford v. United States (5th Cir., 1958), 261 F.2d 825. The search was based on probable cause and was valid from its inception. The admission into evidence of Theriault’s statement was [793]*793proper for the limited purpose of permitting a handwriting expert to compare the handwriting in dispute with this proven specimen. The identification of the defendant did not constitute •a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. The complaint that the trial court admitted a photocopy of one money order without the requisite chain of custody is not supported by the record. The District Court held that the complaint concerning prejudicial publicity had no basis in fact. We agree.

Theriault received a fair and impartial trial at the hands of the Court and jury. No error appearing, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 F.2d 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harry-william-theriault-v-united-states-ca5-1968.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack