United States of America, Appellee-Plaintiff v. Bobby Ross Young, Appellant-Defendant
This text of 291 F.2d 389 (United States of America, Appellee-Plaintiff v. Bobby Ross Young, Appellant-Defendant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER.
Following trial by jury, appellant was found guilty of the unlawful possession of a quantity of distilled spirits, in violation of the provisions of Section 5008 (b), Internal Revenue Code, 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 5008(b). He received a sentence of imprisonment for a period of four years.
On this appeal he contends that the Government’s evidence on the issue of possession was circumstantial, was not sufficient to remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt, and that the Court accordingly erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal and submitting the case to the jury.
Circumstantial evidence, if strong enough to convince a jury of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is sufficient to take a case to the jury and sustain a verdict. United States v. Comer, 6 Cir., 288 F.2d 174. It is not necessary that it be such evidence as would remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 139-140, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150.
The Court, having considered the evidence, the briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, is of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury and sustain the verdict.
It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
291 F.2d 389, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-appellee-plaintiff-v-bobby-ross-young-ca6-1961.