United States v. Billy Lafayette Burke

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Billy Lafayette Burke

412 F.2d 319, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11706

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 1969

Docket27107_1

StatusPublished

This text of 412 F.2d 319 (United States v. Billy Lafayette Burke) 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

United States v. Billy Lafayette Burke, 412 F.2d 319, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11706 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Burke appeals from a judgment entered on a jury conviction of possessing nontaxed whiskey in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 5604(a). We affirm.

Burke’s sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We reject this argument because the testimony of a Government undercover agent, if believed, proved all of the elements of the offense charged. Burke relies upon the fact that he was able to present in his defense multiple witnesses who contradicted the agent’s testimony. However, questions of credibility raised by contradictions in the evidence are to be resolved by the jury. United States v. Plata, 7 Cir. 1966, 361 F.2d 958, cert. denied 385 U.S. 841, 87 S.Ct. 94, 17 L.Ed.2d 74; Wyatt v. United States, 5 Cir. 1959, 263 F.2d 304. Taking the view most favorable to the Government, so long as there exists substantial evidence to support the jury verdict, we must affirm. Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680; Peters v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 376 F.2d 839; Downing v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 348 F.2d 594. In the case, sub judice, we find substantial direct evidence to support the jury verdict.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Burke appeals from a judgment entered on a jury conviction of possessing nontaxed whiskey in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 5604(a). We affirm.

Burke’s sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We reject this argument because the testimony of a Government undercover agent, if believed, proved all of the elements of the offense charged. Burke relies upon the fact that he was able to present in his defense multiple witnesses who contradicted the agent’s testimony. However, questions of credibility raised by contradictions in the evidence are to be resolved by the jury. United States v. Plata, 7 Cir. 1966, 361 F.2d 958, cert. denied 385 U.S. 841, 87 S.Ct. 94, 17 L.Ed.2d 74; Wyatt v. United States, 5 Cir. 1959, 263 F.2d 304. Taking the view most favorable to the Government, so long as there exists substantial evidence to support the jury verdict, we must affirm. Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680; Peters v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 376 F.2d 839; Downing v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 348 F.2d 594. In the case, sub judice, we find substantial direct evidence to support the jury verdict.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 F.2d 319, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-billy-lafayette-burke-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack