Wilton Arthur Welch, Jr. v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Wilton Arthur Welch, Jr. v. United States

386 F.2d 189, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4446

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 22, 1967

Docket24542

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 386 F.2d 189 (Wilton Arthur Welch, Jr. v. United States) 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

Wilton Arthur Welch, Jr. v. United States, 386 F.2d 189, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4446 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, having waived jury trial, was found guilty of receiving and selling a stolen vehicle in violation of 18 U.S. C.A. Section 2313. His appeal is based on a claim of insufficiency of the evidence in that the proof failed with respect to requisite knowledge on his part that the vehicle had been stolen.

It is clear that such knowledge may be established by circumstantial evidence and that possession of a stolen vehicle recently after its theft justifies the inference that the possession is guilty possession. This evidence may be of controlling weight unless it can be explained in some way consistent with innocence. Odom v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 377 F.2d 853 [slip opinion, No. 23,464, May 2, 1967]; Pilgrim v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 486. The record discloses that .appellant was in possession of the stolen vehicle on the day after it was stolen. He separately represented that he purchased the vehicle from two different persons but accounted for neither, and it appeared that one had a nonexistent address. He sold the vehicle within less than a month for substantially less than he allegedly paid for it.

*190 It is thus plain that appellant’s contention is without merit. There was sufficient evidence of guilty knowledge to take the case to the trier of the facts. There the matter ends.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, having waived jury trial, was found guilty of receiving and selling a stolen vehicle in violation of 18 U.S. C.A. Section 2313. His appeal is based on a claim of insufficiency of the evidence in that the proof failed with respect to requisite knowledge on his part that the vehicle had been stolen.

It is clear that such knowledge may be established by circumstantial evidence and that possession of a stolen vehicle recently after its theft justifies the inference that the possession is guilty possession. This evidence may be of controlling weight unless it can be explained in some way consistent with innocence. Odom v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 377 F.2d 853 [slip opinion, No. 23,464, May 2, 1967]; Pilgrim v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 486. The record discloses that .appellant was in possession of the stolen vehicle on the day after it was stolen. He separately represented that he purchased the vehicle from two different persons but accounted for neither, and it appeared that one had a nonexistent address. He sold the vehicle within less than a month for substantially less than he allegedly paid for it.

*190 It is thus plain that appellant’s contention is without merit. There was sufficient evidence of guilty knowledge to take the case to the trier of the facts. There the matter ends.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 F.2d 189, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilton-arthur-welch-jr-v-united-states-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack