United States v. Troy Dennis Cook, With Aliases Troy Dennis Cooke and Bob G. Cook

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Troy Dennis Cook, With Aliases Troy Dennis Cooke and Bob G. Cook

396 F.2d 819, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6559

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 12, 1968

Docket11905

StatusPublished

This text of 396 F.2d 819 (United States v. Troy Dennis Cook, With Aliases Troy Dennis Cooke and Bob G. Cook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Troy Dennis Cook, With Aliases Troy Dennis Cooke and Bob G. Cook, 396 F.2d 819, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6559 (4th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In defendant’s appeal from the judgment entered on his conviction for receiving and concealing a stolen motor vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313, the question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant the jury’s verdict of guilt. Since defendant does not dispute that the vehicle was stolen and was transported in interstate commerce, this question is limited to the sufficiency of the proof of defendant’s knowledge that the vehicle he possessed was stolen.

To prove the fact in issue, the government presented evidence of defendant’s having used a false serial number on the purported title documents for the vehicle, defendant’s having titled the vehicle in the name of his son, defendant’s having postponed notarization of the bill of sale for an unreasonable period, and defendant’s having advanced several conflicting explanations of how he obtained possession and purported ownership of the vehicle. Although, to our view, defendant satisfactorily explained some of these items of proof, those remaining unexplained provided an evidentiary basis from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant received and concealed a stolen motor vehicle with knowledge that it was stolen.

The judgment of the lower court is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

In defendant’s appeal from the judgment entered on his conviction for receiving and concealing a stolen motor vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313, the question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant the jury’s verdict of guilt. Since defendant does not dispute that the vehicle was stolen and was transported in interstate commerce, this question is limited to the sufficiency of the proof of defendant’s knowledge that the vehicle he possessed was stolen.

To prove the fact in issue, the government presented evidence of defendant’s having used a false serial number on the purported title documents for the vehicle, defendant’s having titled the vehicle in the name of his son, defendant’s having postponed notarization of the bill of sale for an unreasonable period, and defendant’s having advanced several conflicting explanations of how he obtained possession and purported ownership of the vehicle. Although, to our view, defendant satisfactorily explained some of these items of proof, those remaining unexplained provided an evidentiary basis from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant received and concealed a stolen motor vehicle with knowledge that it was stolen.

The judgment of the lower court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

396 F.2d 819, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-troy-dennis-cook-with-aliases-troy-dennis-cooke-and-bob-ca4-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack