United States v. Dot Odell Freeman

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Dot Odell Freeman

412 F.2d 856, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11499

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJuly 15, 1969

Docket38-69_1

StatusPublished

This text of 412 F.2d 856 (United States v. Dot Odell Freeman) 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

United States v. Dot Odell Freeman, 412 F.2d 856, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11499 (10th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appellant complains of his conviction and sentence on two grounds. First, he argues that the charge of the trial court “allowed the jury to presume that the Defendant had stolen,the truck in Texas and transported it to Oklahoma without any evidence of that fact being introduced”. The court’s charge, unex-cepted to by the Defendant contained the accepted charge as to inferences which can be drawn from possession of property recently stolen, Maguire v. United States, 10 Cir. 1966, 358 F.2d 442, and LaConte v. United States, 10 Cir. 1964, 330 F.2d 700. There was ample evidence to show that appellant was in possession of an automobile in Oklahoma recently stolen in Texas.

This statement also answers the second contention of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appellant complains of his conviction and sentence on two grounds. First, he argues that the charge of the trial court “allowed the jury to presume that the Defendant had stolen,the truck in Texas and transported it to Oklahoma without any evidence of that fact being introduced”. The court’s charge, unex-cepted to by the Defendant contained the accepted charge as to inferences which can be drawn from possession of property recently stolen, Maguire v. United States, 10 Cir. 1966, 358 F.2d 442, and LaConte v. United States, 10 Cir. 1964, 330 F.2d 700. There was ample evidence to show that appellant was in possession of an automobile in Oklahoma recently stolen in Texas.

This statement also answers the second contention of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 F.2d 856, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dot-odell-freeman-ca10-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack