United States v. Joe Samuel King

326 F.2d 415, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6692
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 17, 1964
Docket15361_1
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 326 F.2d 415 (United States v. Joe Samuel King) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Joe Samuel King, 326 F.2d 415, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6692 (6th Cir. 1964).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Joe Samuel King, was indicted jointly with William Lynn Smith for passing a counterfeit $100 Atlanta Federal Reserve Note with intent to defraud, in violation of the provisions of Section 472, Title 18 United States Code. He was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of 57 months.

Appellant admitted that the bill was a counterfeit and that it was passed by him, but contends that he did not know it was a counterfeit and had no intent to defraud. The naked act of possessing and passing counterfeit money without knowledge that it is counterfeit does not constitute the offense charged. There must also be intent to defraud. Marson v. United States, 203 F.2d 904, 906, C.A. 6th. He contends that the Government’s evidence was insufficient to take the case to the jury on the question of intent and that the District Judge erred in overruling his motion for acquittal at the conclusion of the Government’s case.

Direct proof of intent is not necessary. It may be inferred from the acts of the parties and is a question of fact *416 to be determined from all the circumstances. Battjes v. United States, 172 F.2d 1, 5, C.A. 6th. Appellant contends that he obtained the bill which was passed from his co-defendant in payment of a $50 debt. But there was evidence that he received two counterfeit $100 bills from Smith and that he passed one in one cafe and was in the process of passing the other one in another cafe when “the law walked in.” At that time he grabbed the bill and threw it toward the floor. There was also evidence that the bill was undersized, off color and a bad looking bill.

We are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Hawkins v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Virginia, 2014
United States v. Mousli
511 F.3d 7 (First Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Julio Perez
698 F.2d 1168 (Eleventh Circuit, 1983)
United States v. Adolfo H. Gonzalez
617 F.2d 104 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
United States v. Joe Slone, A/K/A Jose Cardenas
601 F.2d 800 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)
United States v. Charles Tyrone Haggins
545 F.2d 1009 (Fifth Circuit, 1977)
Robert Orville Southard v. United States
453 F.2d 1333 (Sixth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Jones
328 F. Supp. 556 (E.D. Tennessee, 1971)
United States v. Donald William Browning
390 F.2d 511 (Fourth Circuit, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
326 F.2d 415, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joe-samuel-king-ca6-1964.