James Harrison Collins v. United States

Ninth Circuit

James Harrison Collins v. United States

409 F.2d 1352, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12787

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 16, 1969

Docket23081_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 409 F.2d 1352 (James Harrison Collins 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

James Harrison Collins v. United States, 409 F.2d 1352, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12787 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

James Harrison Collins has appealed from the judgment convicting him of violating the Dyer Act. His sole specification centers upon the contention that the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

As in Jarvis v. United States, 312 F.2d 563, 564, (9th Cir. 1963) the conclusion may be reached in this case on the basis of the record that Collins “lost his case when United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407, 77 S.Ct. 397, 1 L.Ed.2d 430, was decided in 1957, holding that an embezzled car could be the subject of a conviction under the Dyer Act.”

When renting the car on December 28, 1967, Collins agreed to return it to the rental agency at Killeen, Texas by January 4, 1968. Where he was on the latter date does not appear, but the evidence is that on January 9, he had the car in Louisiana; that he continued to have it in his possession until April 10, when he was stopped in California for a traffic violation, and that when initially questioned there he claimed ownership. Nec *1353 essarily he had driven the car across “a lot of state lines” during the intervening three months and in the course of adding over 10,000 miles to the mileage shown on the odometer. True, there was no direct proof to establish at what precise place and time he first asserted ownership, but the circumstances were such that a jury might well have found he did so at least before entering California.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

James Harrison Collins has appealed from the judgment convicting him of violating the Dyer Act. His sole specification centers upon the contention that the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

As in Jarvis v. United States, 312 F.2d 563, 564, (9th Cir. 1963) the conclusion may be reached in this case on the basis of the record that Collins “lost his case when United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407, 77 S.Ct. 397, 1 L.Ed.2d 430, was decided in 1957, holding that an embezzled car could be the subject of a conviction under the Dyer Act.”

When renting the car on December 28, 1967, Collins agreed to return it to the rental agency at Killeen, Texas by January 4, 1968. Where he was on the latter date does not appear, but the evidence is that on January 9, he had the car in Louisiana; that he continued to have it in his possession until April 10, when he was stopped in California for a traffic violation, and that when initially questioned there he claimed ownership. Nec *1353 essarily he had driven the car across “a lot of state lines” during the intervening three months and in the course of adding over 10,000 miles to the mileage shown on the odometer. True, there was no direct proof to establish at what precise place and time he first asserted ownership, but the circumstances were such that a jury might well have found he did so at least before entering California.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 F.2d 1352, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-harrison-collins-v-united-states-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack