O. B. Brown v. United States

Fifth Circuit

O. B. Brown v. United States

325 F.2d 417, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3659

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 1963

Docket20550

StatusPublished

This text of 325 F.2d 417 (O. B. Brown 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

O. B. Brown v. United States, 325 F.2d 417, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3659 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Brown, a civilian employee at Robins Air Force Base, was convicted, after indictment and jury trial, of converting government property in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 641.

His appeal asserts error, first, in denying a motion to suppress; second, an insufficiency of evidence to corroborate extrajudicial admissions and a confession, and thus a lack of proof; and third, the incorrectness of allowing the introduction of the extrajudicial admissions and the confession without antecedent prima facie proof of the corpus delecti.

There was no error in the denial of the motion to suppress the property in issue as evidence. The proof on which the trial court could base its decision showed even more than consent; it went to the point of a voluntary disclosure and hand-over. On the question of consent see Calhoun v. United States, 5 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 457; and United States v. Mitchell, 1944, 322 U.S. 65, 64 S.Ct. 896, 88 L.Ed. 1140. As to the second assignment, there was ample evidence to corroborate the extrajudicial confession and admissions which in turn proved the corpus delecti and all essential elements of the crime. Opper v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 84, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101; and Smith v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192. Whether the confession and admissions could be introduced prior to prima facie proof of the corpus delecti is likewise controlled adversely to appellant by Opper v. United States, supra.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Brown, a civilian employee at Robins Air Force Base, was convicted, after indictment and jury trial, of converting government property in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 641.

His appeal asserts error, first, in denying a motion to suppress; second, an insufficiency of evidence to corroborate extrajudicial admissions and a confession, and thus a lack of proof; and third, the incorrectness of allowing the introduction of the extrajudicial admissions and the confession without antecedent prima facie proof of the corpus delecti.

There was no error in the denial of the motion to suppress the property in issue as evidence. The proof on which the trial court could base its decision showed even more than consent; it went to the point of a voluntary disclosure and hand-over. On the question of consent see Calhoun v. United States, 5 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 457; and United States v. Mitchell, 1944, 322 U.S. 65, 64 S.Ct. 896, 88 L.Ed. 1140. As to the second assignment, there was ample evidence to corroborate the extrajudicial confession and admissions which in turn proved the corpus delecti and all essential elements of the crime. Opper v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 84, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101; and Smith v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192. Whether the confession and admissions could be introduced prior to prima facie proof of the corpus delecti is likewise controlled adversely to appellant by Opper v. United States, supra.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 F.2d 417, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/o-b-brown-v-united-states-ca5-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack