Katz v. United States

281 F. 129, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 5, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2065
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 12, 1922
DocketNo. 3614
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 281 F. 129 (Katz v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Katz v. United States, 281 F. 129, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 5, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2065 (6th Cir. 1922).

Opinion

DENISON, Circ. J.:

Katz was convicted of violating Sec. 4 of the U. S. Act of Oct. 29, 1919, penalizing interstate transportation of stolen automobiles. Katz and another were charged that at Cleveland they received and concealed an automobile stolen at Erie, Pa., and transported to that city, which had been moving as a part of interstate commerce, the accused knowing the same to have been stolen, and transported in interstate commerce. The Court of Appeals 'held:

1. The defense claimed that in order to justify a conviction of Katz, the prosecution must prove that he knew the auto had been stolen, and of its interstate transportation. But the appellate court held that it was sufficient that he knew that the car had been stolen.

2. The defense argued that there was not sufficient evidence to support a conviction that Katz had the necessary knowledge that the car was stolen. The testimony of the government showed that Katz bought the car from one Walsh, whom Katz knew was a car theif, and that Katz used a bill of sale signed by Walsh under a fictitious name. This was sufficient to sustain a finding by the jury that he knew that the car was stolen.

S. Evidence was admissible that Katz knew of the stealing of another car by the seller from whom he bought the car in question, the jury having been cautioned that the testimony must not be considered except as it might be thought to have a bearing upon the issue of knowledge that the car in question was stolen.

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

Related

United States v. Gerald Leon Smith
461 F.2d 246 (Tenth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Bash
258 F. Supp. 807 (N.D. Indiana, 1966)
Commonwealth v. Giles
213 N.E.2d 476 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1966)
People ex rel. Goodrich v. Martin
183 Misc. 790 (New York Supreme Court, 1944)
Donaldson v. United States
82 F.2d 680 (Seventh Circuit, 1936)
United States v. Drexel
56 F.2d 588 (Second Circuit, 1932)
Wilkerson v. United States
41 F.2d 654 (Seventh Circuit, 1930)
Wolf v. United States
36 F.2d 450 (Seventh Circuit, 1929)
Baugh v. United States
27 F.2d 257 (Ninth Circuit, 1928)
Nyquist v. United States
2 F.2d 504 (Sixth Circuit, 1924)
Silverman v. United States
2 F.2d 716 (Sixth Circuit, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 F. 129, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 5, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-united-states-ca6-1922.