Robert Lee Payne v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Robert Lee Payne v. United States

409 F.2d 1350, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12943

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 1969

Docket26283

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 409 F.2d 1350 (Robert Lee Payne 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

Robert Lee Payne v. United States, 409 F.2d 1350, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12943 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from conviction of interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. 1 We have considered all contentions of appellant, the briefs and the full record.

The court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. Appellant was identified by a police officer as the person in possession of a vehicle in Florida which was sufficiently identified as having been recently stolen in Illinois. The possession was unexplained. Beufve v. United States, 374 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1967); Barfield v. United States, 229 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1956).

The statement made by appellant immediately after he was taken into custody, concerning his possession of a re *1351 volver, was not inadmissible under Miranda. Under the undisputed testimony the statement was volunteered by him. No interrogation had occurred.

In summation to the jury the prosecutor stated that a person who was shown to be near the scene of appellant’s arrest had been released by the police because he was only a hitchhiker. There was no evidence to that effect. Counsel for petitioner promptly objected and moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion and gave corrective instructions. The only significance of the matter was that there were items of property nearby which tended to connect appellant with the stolen vehicle, and the jury could have inferred that the person said to be a hitchhiker put them there rather than appellant. Since appellant was found in possession of a revolver bearing a serial number which matched the serial number shown on a revolver box found in the stolen and previously abandoned vehicle, we are of the view that the one single, brief and erroneous reference to the status of the otherwise identified person was not reversible error.

Affirmed.

1

. Under Rule 18 the Court has placed this case on the Summary Calendar for disposition without oral argument. See Floyd v. Resor, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 714, n. 2.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from conviction of interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. 1 We have considered all contentions of appellant, the briefs and the full record.

The court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. Appellant was identified by a police officer as the person in possession of a vehicle in Florida which was sufficiently identified as having been recently stolen in Illinois. The possession was unexplained. Beufve v. United States, 374 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1967); Barfield v. United States, 229 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1956).

The statement made by appellant immediately after he was taken into custody, concerning his possession of a re *1351 volver, was not inadmissible under Miranda. Under the undisputed testimony the statement was volunteered by him. No interrogation had occurred.

In summation to the jury the prosecutor stated that a person who was shown to be near the scene of appellant’s arrest had been released by the police because he was only a hitchhiker. There was no evidence to that effect. Counsel for petitioner promptly objected and moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion and gave corrective instructions. The only significance of the matter was that there were items of property nearby which tended to connect appellant with the stolen vehicle, and the jury could have inferred that the person said to be a hitchhiker put them there rather than appellant. Since appellant was found in possession of a revolver bearing a serial number which matched the serial number shown on a revolver box found in the stolen and previously abandoned vehicle, we are of the view that the one single, brief and erroneous reference to the status of the otherwise identified person was not reversible error.

Affirmed.

1

. Under Rule 18 the Court has placed this case on the Summary Calendar for disposition without oral argument. See Floyd v. Resor, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 714, n. 2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 F.2d 1350, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-lee-payne-v-united-states-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack