United States v. Verlin Baxter
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Verlin BAXTER, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was found guilty by verdict of a jury of disposing of a substance of the character used in the manufacture of distilled spirits, namely, 300 pounds of sugar, and wilfully and unlawfully failing to render to the Assistant Regional Commissioner, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, a correct return of such disposition, in violation of the provisions of Section 5213(a), Title 26 U.S.C. and the regulations prescribed thereunder by the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment.
The constitutionality of the regulation has been previously upheld by this Court. Di Santo v. United States, 6 Cir., 93 F.2d 948 , certiorari denied, 303 U.S. 662 , 58 S.Ct. 829 , 82 L.Ed. 1121 . See also: United States v. Tishman, 7 Cir., 99 F.2d 951 , certiorari denied, 306 U.S. 636 , 59 S.Ct. 485 , 83 L.Ed. 1038 .
It is admitted by appellant that no report was made by him of the transaction relied upon by the Government, but it is contended that the Government’s evidence failed to show that the bag which was loaded from appellant’s storeroom into the trunk of an automobile, which constituted the transaction under consideration, contained sugar. There was no direct evidence that it contained sugar, or what it contained, but we are of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence introduced by the Government was sufficient to take the case to the jury and to support the verdict. Circumstantial evidence, if strong enough to convince a jury of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is sufficient to sustain a verdict. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 139-140 , 75 S.Ct. 127 , 99 L. Ed. 150 ; United States v. Comer, 6 Cir., 288 F.2d 174 .
We find no prejudicial error in the admission of certain evidence, com- *488 plained of by appellant. Nor were the instructions, considered in their entirety, such as to improperly cause the jurors to return a verdict of guilty. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 ; Logsdon v. United States, 6 Cir., 253 F.2d 12, 15-16 .
The judgment is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- United States v. Orville E. Stifel, II
- United States v. Fred Michael Conti
- United States v. Charles E. Leggett and John Henry Eleveld
- United States v. Billy Gilbert Nicholson, United States of America v. Billy Gilbert Nicholson, of $7,198.00 in United States Money
- United States v. Albert Baxter Thomas
- United States v. Bernard Abney May
Most recent
- United States v. Orville E. Stifel, II
- United States v. Bernard Abney May
- United States v. Fred Michael Conti
- United States v. Pauline Vandam
- United States v. Albert Baxter Thomas
- United States v. Billy Gilbert Nicholson, United States of America v. Billy Gilbert Nicholson, of $7,198.00 in United States Money
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.