United States v. Richard A. Weeks

327 F.2d 656, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3359
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedDecember 23, 1963
Docket209, Docket 28400
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 327 F.2d 656 (United States v. Richard A. Weeks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Richard A. Weeks, 327 F.2d 656, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3359 (2d Cir. 1963).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted, after a one-day trial without a jury, for a violation of Title 18, United States Code, § 1708. He had been indicted for two alleged violations of this statute. Prior to the swearing of the first witness, defense counsel moved for a direction that the Government elect between the first count, mail theft, and the second count, possession of stolen mail. The trial court reserved decision on this motion until the close of the Government’s case-in-chief when it dismissed the first count. The trial court’s reservation of its decision was clearly within its discretion and did not constitute error. Cf. United States v. Ketchum, 320 F.2d 3 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 905, 84 S.Ct. 194, 11 L.Ed.2d 145 (1963). Moreover, since the second count was premised upon prior mail theft, it was not error, despite the dismissal of the first count, to receive evidence of theft to prove the second *657 count, a distinct indictable offense. Marshall v. United States, 299 F.2d 141 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 958, 82 S.Ct. 1606, 8 L.Ed.2d 824 (1962). Finally, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, cf. United States v. Kane, 322 F.2d 787 (2d Cir. 1963), it cannot be said that the evidence adduced at the trial did not support beyond a reasonable doubt the inference that appellant unlawfully possessed a package stolen from an authorized depository for mail matter, with knowledge that it was stolen, for which the judgment of conviction under the second count was duly entered. See United States v. Hines, 256 F.2d 561 (2d Cir. 1958).

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Madell Collins
349 F.2d 863 (Second Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
327 F.2d 656, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-a-weeks-ca2-1963.