Stevenson v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Stevenson v. United States

200 F.2d 109, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2245

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 1952

Docket4506

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 F.2d 109 (Stevenson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stevenson v. United States, 200 F.2d 109, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2245 (10th Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted on an information charging him with transporting intoxicating liquors from Joplin, Missouri, into the State of Oklahoma in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1262. This statute makes it unlawful for any person to import or transport intoxicating liquors into any state in which the sale of such liquors is prohibited. Liquors for scientific, sacramental, medicinal, and mechanical purposes are excepted. Liquor may also be lawfully imported into a state if accompanied by a permit or license therefor issued under the laws of such state.

It is contended, here that the evidence was insufficient to establish (1) that the liquor was transported from Missouri into Oklahoma, and (2) that the appellant did not have a license or permit to bring the liquor into the State of Oklahoma.

The appellant, with a brother, was apprehended by an Oklahoma state officer, traveling in an automobile coming from the direction of Joplin, Missouri. The -automobile bore a Missouri- license plate* and an *110 Oklahoma license plate was inside. It contained 33 cases of whiskey bearing Missouri revenue stamps. At the time of the apprehension, appellant told the state officers that he had 33 cases of whiskey and exclaimed, “My God, Floyd, you are not going to take this; this will ruin us.” He also stated that the state officer could not have had a tip that he was coming through with the load as “no one knows which way we come when we leave Joplin — We don’t even know ourself.” This evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding of the court that the liquor was being transported from Missouri into Oklahoma.

The circumstances are sufficient to make a prima facie case'.and the burden was upon the appellant tov> prove that the transportation was lawful. 37 Okl.Stat. 1951, § 50.3; Thompson v. United States, 5 Cir., 44 F.2d 165; Rhodes v. United States, 9 Cir., 39 F.2d 1; Giacolone v. United States, 9 Cir., 13 F.2d 108; Altshuler v. United States, 3 Cir., 3 F.2d 791; Feinberg v. United States, 8 Cir., 2 F.2d 955; Goldberg v. United States, 5 Cir., 297 F. 98; McCurry v. United States, 9 Cir., 281 F. 532.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted on an information charging him with transporting intoxicating liquors from Joplin, Missouri, into the State of Oklahoma in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1262. This statute makes it unlawful for any person to import or transport intoxicating liquors into any state in which the sale of such liquors is prohibited. Liquors for scientific, sacramental, medicinal, and mechanical purposes are excepted. Liquor may also be lawfully imported into a state if accompanied by a permit or license therefor issued under the laws of such state.

It is contended, here that the evidence was insufficient to establish (1) that the liquor was transported from Missouri into Oklahoma, and (2) that the appellant did not have a license or permit to bring the liquor into the State of Oklahoma.

The appellant, with a brother, was apprehended by an Oklahoma state officer, traveling in an automobile coming from the direction of Joplin, Missouri. The -automobile bore a Missouri- license plate* and an *110 Oklahoma license plate was inside. It contained 33 cases of whiskey bearing Missouri revenue stamps. At the time of the apprehension, appellant told the state officers that he had 33 cases of whiskey and exclaimed, “My God, Floyd, you are not going to take this; this will ruin us.” He also stated that the state officer could not have had a tip that he was coming through with the load as “no one knows which way we come when we leave Joplin — We don’t even know ourself.” This evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding of the court that the liquor was being transported from Missouri into Oklahoma.

The circumstances are sufficient to make a prima facie case'.and the burden was upon the appellant tov> prove that the transportation was lawful. 37 Okl.Stat. 1951, § 50.3; Thompson v. United States, 5 Cir., 44 F.2d 165; Rhodes v. United States, 9 Cir., 39 F.2d 1; Giacolone v. United States, 9 Cir., 13 F.2d 108; Altshuler v. United States, 3 Cir., 3 F.2d 791; Feinberg v. United States, 8 Cir., 2 F.2d 955; Goldberg v. United States, 5 Cir., 297 F. 98; McCurry v. United States, 9 Cir., 281 F. 532.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 F.2d 109, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevenson-v-united-states-ca10-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack