TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Walter Eugene Spurrier v. United States

Walter Eugene SPURRIER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Spurrier v. United States, 389 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1967)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 12, 1967
Docket
No. 24510_1
Judges
Tuttle, Wisdom, Heebe
Citations
389 F.2d 3671967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4882

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction on two counts of breaking into a building with intent to commit larceny from that part being used as a Post Office, and for stealing money and items of value therefrom in excess of $100 value.

We conclude that the evidence given by Hall as to the audit of the branch post office account was admissible to prove the amount of inventory that was supposed to be kept in the safe; it was not sufficient to prove the amount actually taken. However the testimony of Holmes, the storekeeper, that “the funds of the store as well as the funds pertaining to the post office were placed in the safe and the safe was locked * * * ” is sufficient to warrant submission to the jury the question whether the funds that were supposed to be in the safe were actually there.

As to the Jencks law complaint made here, we conclude that the excised part of the witnesses prior written statements did not “relate to the subject matter to which the witness has testified”, because this witness did not testify anything as to the amount reported to have been stolen.

We conclude that the trial court did not err in not requiring witness Hall to produce memoranda made by him to refresh his recollection if they were not in fact so used by him. See Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129 , 62 S.Ct. 993 , 86 L.Ed. 1322 (1942) and Needelman v. United States, 5 Cir., 261 F.2d 802 .

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1972: 11975: 21983: 11987: 119722026peak 1975 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Thomas W. Bishton463 F.2d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
  2. United States v. Larry Drake Atkinson, United States of America v. Amos Manuel Dubois513 F.2d 38 (4th Cir. 1975)
  3. United States v. Donald Mark Nathan816 F.2d 230 (6th Cir. 1987)
  4. State v. Maluia539 P.2d 1200 (Haw. 1975)
  5. United States v. Rogelio Soto711 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1983)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Donald Mark Nathan816 F.2d 230 (6th Cir. 1987)
  2. United States v. Rogelio Soto711 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1983)
  3. State v. Maluia539 P.2d 1200 (Haw. 1975)
  4. United States v. Larry Drake Atkinson, United States of America v. Amos Manuel Dubois513 F.2d 38 (4th Cir. 1975)
  5. United States v. Thomas W. Bishton463 F.2d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1972)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129 (1942) 369
Needelman v. United States, 261 F.2d 802 (5th Cir. 1959) 16

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