United States v. Harold Dean Audsley

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Harold Dean Audsley

486 F.2d 289, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7358

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 1973

Docket73-1360

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 486 F.2d 289 (United States v. Harold Dean Audsley) 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. Harold Dean Audsley, 486 F.2d 289, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7358 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Audsley was found guilty by a jury of aiding and abetting the interstate transportation and pledging of stolen securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2314, 2315. He attacks the judgment of conviction on five grounds: (1) the admission of evidence of similar prior transactions between the appellant and one Jones with whom the present transaction took place; (2) insufficient evidence to prove the required elements of the offense; (3) the propriety of a charge to the jury regarding permissible inferences to be drawn from possession of recently stolen property; (4) the indictment was misread to the jury; and (5) curtailment of cross-examination.

Audsley is correct in contending that as a general rule the evidence introduced in a criminal trial should relate only to the specific offense charged in the indictment. It is also well recognized, however, that prior transactions may be introduced to establish that the defendant possessed the requisite knowledge or intent, or that there is a consistent pattern, scheme of operation, or similarity of method. United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 55 (5th Cir. 1972). A principal issue at the trial was Audsley’s knowledge of the stolen character of the securities. We find that the evidence of prior transactions was substantially relevant to this issue. 1

The appellant’s argument concerning the insufficiency of the evidence has no merit. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680, 704 (1942). The challenged jury charge was appropriate in view of United States v. Barnes, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973). See also United States v. Roberts, 483 F. 2d 226 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Howard, 483 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1973).

After a complete review of the record and the contentions presented in appellant’s brief and at oral argument, we discern no merit in appellant’s other specifications of error. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

1

. The trial judge gave limiting instructions on the use of this evidence.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Audsley was found guilty by a jury of aiding and abetting the interstate transportation and pledging of stolen securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2314, 2315. He attacks the judgment of conviction on five grounds: (1) the admission of evidence of similar prior transactions between the appellant and one Jones with whom the present transaction took place; (2) insufficient evidence to prove the required elements of the offense; (3) the propriety of a charge to the jury regarding permissible inferences to be drawn from possession of recently stolen property; (4) the indictment was misread to the jury; and (5) curtailment of cross-examination.

Audsley is correct in contending that as a general rule the evidence introduced in a criminal trial should relate only to the specific offense charged in the indictment. It is also well recognized, however, that prior transactions may be introduced to establish that the defendant possessed the requisite knowledge or intent, or that there is a consistent pattern, scheme of operation, or similarity of method. United States v. Alston, 460 F.2d 48, 55 (5th Cir. 1972). A principal issue at the trial was Audsley’s knowledge of the stolen character of the securities. We find that the evidence of prior transactions was substantially relevant to this issue. 1

The appellant’s argument concerning the insufficiency of the evidence has no merit. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680, 704 (1942). The challenged jury charge was appropriate in view of United States v. Barnes, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973). See also United States v. Roberts, 483 F. 2d 226 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Howard, 483 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1973).

After a complete review of the record and the contentions presented in appellant’s brief and at oral argument, we discern no merit in appellant’s other specifications of error. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

1

. The trial judge gave limiting instructions on the use of this evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 F.2d 289, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-harold-dean-audsley-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack