TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. William Bruce Pounds

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William Bruce POUNDS, Appellant

United States v. Pounds, 323 F.2d 419 (3d Cir. 1963)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 2, 1963
Docket
No. 14053
Judges
McLaughlin, Staley, Hastie
Citations
323 F.2d 4191963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4084

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was tried and convicted on an indictment charging interstate transportation of a stolen trailer in violation of Section 2314, Title 18 U.S.C. The first of the two points urged for reversal is that the Government failed to prove that defendant knew the trailer was stolen. The record reveals evidence that the trailer was stolen on December 18, 1960 from the Pulley Freight Lines, Inc., Des Moines, Iowa, and it was admitted that on January 3, 1961, it was found in the possession of Pounds in New Jersey. Those circumstances gave rise to a presumption that the possession was guilty possession. Herman v. United States, 289 F.2d 362, 367 (5 Cir. 1961). Pounds testified and offered an explanation of his possession of the trailer. The jury quite plainly did not believe that explanation. Inference that person in possession knew property had been stolen may reasonably be drawn from a false explanation of possession. Herman v. United States, supra, 289 F.2d p. 366. To same effect Husten v. United States, 95 F.2d 168 (8 Cir. 1938).

The other point presented is that the defendant was prejudiced by the Government’s introduction of irrelevant and immaterial testimony. The evidence complained of is that of Lieutenant Brigham, Supervisor of the Missouri Motor Vehicle Theft and Information Bureau. That testimony was both competent and vitally important. It at least tended to show that Pounds’ story to F.B.I. agents that he had obtained the trailer in question by trading for it a 1950 Freuhauf *420 trailer with an Illinois vehicle number AV145951 was false to his knowledge. Cf. United States v. Alker, 260 F.2d 135 (3 Cir. 1958), cert. den. 359 U.S. 906 , 79 S.Ct. 579 , 3 L.Ed.2d 571 (1959).

This difficult appeal was thoroughly prepared and capably argued by assigned counsel on behalf of appellant.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1970: 21971: 11972: 11973: 119702026peak 1970 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Commonwealth v. Owens271 A.2d 230 (Pa. 1970)
  2. United States v. James Rispo470 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1973)
  3. United States v. Taylor334 F. Supp. 1050 (E.D. Pa. 1971)
  4. United States v. Rispo338 F. Supp. 662 (E.D. Pa. 1972)
  5. United States v. Jay B. Smiley423 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1970)

Most recent

  1. United States v. James Rispo470 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1973)
  2. United States v. Rispo338 F. Supp. 662 (E.D. Pa. 1972)
  3. United States v. Taylor334 F. Supp. 1050 (E.D. Pa. 1971)
  4. Commonwealth v. Owens271 A.2d 230 (Pa. 1970)
  5. United States v. Jay B. Smiley423 F.2d 930 (8th Cir. 1970)

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.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Herman v. United States, 289 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1961) 113
United States v. Alker, 260 F.2d 135 (3d Cir. 1958) 52
Husten v. United States, 95 F.2d 168 (8th Cir. 1938) 37

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list