Leonard Milton Cade, Jr. v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Leonard Milton Cade, Jr. v. United States

351 F.2d 468, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4352

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 7, 1965

Docket22456_1

StatusPublished

This text of 351 F.2d 468 (Leonard Milton Cade, Jr. 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

Leonard Milton Cade, Jr. v. United States, 351 F.2d 468, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4352 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On this appeal from a conviction and sentence under the Dyer Act, the appellant makes two specific contentions. The first is that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the stealing of the subject automobile had occurred prior to its transportation in interstate commerce. The second is that prejudicial error occurred when the trial court permitted the introduction in evidence, over objection, of the testimony of a friend of the appellant to the effect that appellant had stolen his gasoline credit card before leaving his home on what, within a reasonably short period thereafter, turned out to be the trip that took the car across state lines into Florida.

Dealing with these points in reverse order, we conclude that the illegal taking of his friend’s credit card upon departure from the residence where appellant had been staying can legally give rise to the inference that a permanent departure was intended; thus, that there was an intent not to return the automobile to the Econo Car Co., its owner. Then dealing with the other matter, it is clear in light of this fact and the other facts of record, that there was ample evidence from *469 which the jury could infer that prior to his taking the automobile across state lines, contrary to the restrictions contained in the rental agreement, Cade had formed the intention and performed the acts necessary to amount in law to a stealing of the automobile in question.

The Court is indebted to counsel who acted voluntarily for the accused both in the trial court and in this Court.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

On this appeal from a conviction and sentence under the Dyer Act, the appellant makes two specific contentions. The first is that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the stealing of the subject automobile had occurred prior to its transportation in interstate commerce. The second is that prejudicial error occurred when the trial court permitted the introduction in evidence, over objection, of the testimony of a friend of the appellant to the effect that appellant had stolen his gasoline credit card before leaving his home on what, within a reasonably short period thereafter, turned out to be the trip that took the car across state lines into Florida.

Dealing with these points in reverse order, we conclude that the illegal taking of his friend’s credit card upon departure from the residence where appellant had been staying can legally give rise to the inference that a permanent departure was intended; thus, that there was an intent not to return the automobile to the Econo Car Co., its owner. Then dealing with the other matter, it is clear in light of this fact and the other facts of record, that there was ample evidence from *469 which the jury could infer that prior to his taking the automobile across state lines, contrary to the restrictions contained in the rental agreement, Cade had formed the intention and performed the acts necessary to amount in law to a stealing of the automobile in question.

The Court is indebted to counsel who acted voluntarily for the accused both in the trial court and in this Court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 F.2d 468, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-milton-cade-jr-v-united-states-ca5-1965.