Perry Nathaniel Peters v. United States

376 F.2d 839, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6623
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 25, 1967
Docket23910_1
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 376 F.2d 839 (Perry Nathaniel Peters 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
Perry Nathaniel Peters v. United States, 376 F.2d 839, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6623 (5th Cir. 1967).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Peters was convicted by a jury of passing counterfeit United States securities with intent to defraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 472. The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could properly infer knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the bill passed. Ruiz v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 374 F.2d 619 [Mar. 24, 1967]. The verdict of the jury must be sustained if supported by substantial evidence, including reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, as viewed in the light most favorable to the Government. Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680.

We conclude that the record amply supports the jury verdict. Peter’s asserted lack of knowledge ignores the testimony of Claude Beck, Jr., a witness for the Government who had recently been convicted of dealing in counterfeit obligations that were part of a printing known to Federal agents and to which the bill passed by Peters had been traced. Beck testified that within two months prior to the incident for which Peters was convicted, he had sold counterfeit twenty-dollar bills to Peters, indeed that *840 Peters was allowed to thumb through the counterfeit bills in order to select “the best ones he could find.”

Based upon this testimony, which was clearly admissible, the jury could properly infer that the requisite intent had been established. The District Court was careful in instructing the jury concerning the weight and credibility to be accorded the testimony of the accomplice Beck. We find no error.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Hazelwood v. State
609 N.E.2d 10 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1993)
Gibbs v. State
538 N.E.2d 937 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1989)
United States v. Orange Jell Beechum
582 F.2d 898 (Fifth Circuit, 1978)
United States v. Joe E. Simmons
503 F.2d 831 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)
United States v. Tarciso Antonio De Alba-Conrado
481 F.2d 1266 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Cleveland Kimbrough
481 F.2d 421 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Carlos Marcello
423 F.2d 993 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
United States v. Stanley Steven Fleischman
412 F.2d 523 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Posey v. United States
416 F.2d 545 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Billy Lafayette Burke
412 F.2d 319 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Michael Waldo Simmons v. United States
406 F.2d 456 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Donald William Browning
390 F.2d 511 (Fourth Circuit, 1968)
Frank Roswell Moorman, III v. United States
389 F.2d 27 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)
Alvino Cortez Paz v. United States
387 F.2d 428 (Fifth Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
376 F.2d 839, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-nathaniel-peters-v-united-states-ca5-1967.