Margarito Ramirez Gutierrez v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Margarito Ramirez Gutierrez v. United States

314 F.2d 334, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6282

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 30, 1963

Docket19789_1

StatusPublished

This text of 314 F.2d 334 (Margarito Ramirez Gutierrez 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

Margarito Ramirez Gutierrez v. United States, 314 F.2d 334, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6282 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

JOSEPH C. HUTCHESON, Jr., Circuit Judge.

This appeal from a verdict and judgment of guilty and sentence pursuant thereto presents under three numbered points the single proposition that the evidence, circumstantial as it was, was wholly insufficient to establish defendant’s guilt and his motion for directed verdict should have been granted. We agree. Kassin v. United States, 5 Cir., 87 F.2d 183; Panci v. United States, 5 Cir., 256 F.2d 308.

The theory of the government was that the agents had put a stake out on one Mauricio and that the purpose of the stake out was to witness a delivery by Gutierrez of the marihuana in question to Mauricio. Instead, however, of furnishing evidence that Gutierrez had been seen making the delivery, the government relied entirely on the arrangements with Mauricio to make contract with Gutierrez, on the fact that Mauricio had told the government agent that he was going to make contact with him, and that when Mauricio returned he told the agent that everything was all right and he had the marihuana. In short, as in Panci v. United States, supra, the government, instead of proving that Gutierrez had made a delivery, relied on the hearsay statements of Mauricio. This will not at all do.

All that the government's testimony established was that Mauxncio was sent to get marihuaixa from the defendaxxt and that when he returned with a bag with marihuana in it, he told the government agent that he had gotten it from Gutierrez. The agent, Taylor, on whose testimony the government relied, testified not that he saw Gutierrez deliver marihuana to. Mauricio but merely that he saw Mauricio when he went to the front of the bar and he had nothing in his possession; that Gutiex'rez handed Mauricio a paper bag and then walked down toward *335 the cafe; that Mauricio stood in front of the bar and had this brown paper bag that Gutierrez had given him; that thereupon Mauricio entered a Yellow cab and the cab drove to the McKinney Inn; that the witness Taylor followed the cab in his automobile, and he saw only the driver of the cab and Mauricio; that the cab did not stop until it got to the McKinney Inn; and that the door was opening as he turned the corner, and he saw Mauricio come out of the McKinney Inn with agent Mayo.

The evidence does not show that Mauricio was in sight of the agents at all times, nor does it otherwise establish that Gutierrez delivered marihuana to Mauricio. There is nothing here in short but suspicion. The evidence does not exclude, as it must have done, every other reasonable conclusion than that of guilt.

The motion for directed verdict should have been granted. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to acquit the defendant.

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

JOSEPH C. HUTCHESON, Jr., Circuit Judge.

This appeal from a verdict and judgment of guilty and sentence pursuant thereto presents under three numbered points the single proposition that the evidence, circumstantial as it was, was wholly insufficient to establish defendant’s guilt and his motion for directed verdict should have been granted. We agree. Kassin v. United States, 5 Cir., 87 F.2d 183; Panci v. United States, 5 Cir., 256 F.2d 308.

The theory of the government was that the agents had put a stake out on one Mauricio and that the purpose of the stake out was to witness a delivery by Gutierrez of the marihuana in question to Mauricio. Instead, however, of furnishing evidence that Gutierrez had been seen making the delivery, the government relied entirely on the arrangements with Mauricio to make contract with Gutierrez, on the fact that Mauricio had told the government agent that he was going to make contact with him, and that when Mauricio returned he told the agent that everything was all right and he had the marihuana. In short, as in Panci v. United States, supra, the government, instead of proving that Gutierrez had made a delivery, relied on the hearsay statements of Mauricio. This will not at all do.

All that the government's testimony established was that Mauxncio was sent to get marihuaixa from the defendaxxt and that when he returned with a bag with marihuana in it, he told the government agent that he had gotten it from Gutierrez. The agent, Taylor, on whose testimony the government relied, testified not that he saw Gutierrez deliver marihuana to. Mauricio but merely that he saw Mauricio when he went to the front of the bar and he had nothing in his possession; that Gutiex'rez handed Mauricio a paper bag and then walked down toward *335 the cafe; that Mauricio stood in front of the bar and had this brown paper bag that Gutierrez had given him; that thereupon Mauricio entered a Yellow cab and the cab drove to the McKinney Inn; that the witness Taylor followed the cab in his automobile, and he saw only the driver of the cab and Mauricio; that the cab did not stop until it got to the McKinney Inn; and that the door was opening as he turned the corner, and he saw Mauricio come out of the McKinney Inn with agent Mayo.

The evidence does not show that Mauricio was in sight of the agents at all times, nor does it otherwise establish that Gutierrez delivered marihuana to Mauricio. There is nothing here in short but suspicion. The evidence does not exclude, as it must have done, every other reasonable conclusion than that of guilt.

The motion for directed verdict should have been granted. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to acquit the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 F.2d 334, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margarito-ramirez-gutierrez-v-united-states-ca5-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack