Homer Hyche v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Homer Hyche v. United States

286 F.2d 248, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5515

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 1961

Docket18481

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 286 F.2d 248 (Homer Hyche 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

Homer Hyche v. United States, 286 F.2d 248, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5515 (5th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole question presented by this appeal from a conviction for “removing, depositing, or concealing” untaxed alcohol, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(4), is the sufficiency of the evidence to submit the case to the jury.

There was substantial direct evidence that appellant actively engaged in the transfer of 160 gallons of moonshine whiskey from his own car to the trunk of another vehicle. So much is, for all practical purposes, admitted. But appellant *249 maintains that this activity does not constitute an offense within the statute under which he was charged.

It may be that the transfer of untaxed alcohol from one vehicle to another does not make out a case of “removal.” See Price v. United States, 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 283; United States v. Perfetti, D.C.E.D.Pa., 91 F.Supp. 909. But the act of placing the whiskey in the trunk of the car, considered in connection with appellant’s flight to avoid apprehension, clearly amounts to “depositing” and “concealing” within the intendment of the statute. See Ingram v. United States, 5 Cir., 241 F.2d 708. And proof of any one of the prohibited acts, even though “removing,” “depositing” and “concealing” were charged conjunctively, is sufficient for conviction. Price v. United States, supra.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sole question presented by this appeal from a conviction for “removing, depositing, or concealing” untaxed alcohol, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(4), is the sufficiency of the evidence to submit the case to the jury.

There was substantial direct evidence that appellant actively engaged in the transfer of 160 gallons of moonshine whiskey from his own car to the trunk of another vehicle. So much is, for all practical purposes, admitted. But appellant *249 maintains that this activity does not constitute an offense within the statute under which he was charged.

It may be that the transfer of untaxed alcohol from one vehicle to another does not make out a case of “removal.” See Price v. United States, 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 283; United States v. Perfetti, D.C.E.D.Pa., 91 F.Supp. 909. But the act of placing the whiskey in the trunk of the car, considered in connection with appellant’s flight to avoid apprehension, clearly amounts to “depositing” and “concealing” within the intendment of the statute. See Ingram v. United States, 5 Cir., 241 F.2d 708. And proof of any one of the prohibited acts, even though “removing,” “depositing” and “concealing” were charged conjunctively, is sufficient for conviction. Price v. United States, supra.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 F.2d 248, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/homer-hyche-v-united-states-ca5-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack