TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Richard C. Marino

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Richard C. MARINO, Appellant

United States v. Marino, 396 F.2d 780 (2d Cir. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 24, 1968
Docket
Nos. 531, Docket 32291
Judges
Smith, Kaufman, Hays
Citations
396 F.2d 7801968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6380

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Richard C. Marino was convicted on trial to the Court, jury waived, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, T. Emmet Clarie, Judge, of transportation of more than $5,000 worth of stolen goods in interstate commerce and of conspiracy so to transport in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 , 371 and he appeals. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

The sole issue presented on the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence that the amount of the stolen goods transported interstate equalled or exceeded $5,000.

The evidence justified a finding that Marino, a Connecticut coin dealer, arranged for two men to hold up a Vermont coin dealer at his home, and that they did so and escaped with $8,300 worth of coins and other articles, including an ingot of silver, tying up the Vermont dealer, his wife and Marino, present in the guise of a customer. Some 17 days later Marino in Connecticut delivered some $800 in coins and the ingot to one Raccio for sale, for a down payment of $100 and a share in the proceeds over $100 in order to obtain money to pay off the two robbers. Raccio later informed authorities and returned the articles to Marino, in whose house in Connecticut they were found on Mari-no’s arrest. Marino lied about his acquisition of the coins and reason for hiding the ingot. He informed Raccio prior to trial that the identifiable paper money taken in Vermont was gone and everything else was gone.

It was a reasonable inference from all the circumstances that all the articles stolen, as well as those specifically identified in Marino’s possession in Connecticut, were agreed to be and were transported in interstate commerce. Cf. United States v. Messina, 388 F.2d 393 (2 Cir. 1968). Marino told Raccio that the two robbers knew nothing about coins. There is no evidence which supports an inference that any part of the loot remained in Vermont. It is quite plain that Marino was the manager of the enterprise, that he was to pay off the two robbers in ordinary cash, and that he was the one of the three with enough knowledge of the nature of the goods to handle their disposition. His later statements to Raccio were admissions that he had had more of the loot than he delivered to Raccio.

This is sufficient to sustain the finding beyond a reasonable doubt both that the conspiracy contemplated interstate transportation of goods worth over $5,000, and that the actual transportation involved goods worth that amount. Since the sentences were concurrent, a valid conviction on either count is of course sufficient. Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339 , 78 S.Ct. 311 , 2 L.Ed.2d 321 (1958); United States v. Scandifia, 390 F.2d 244 (2 Cir 1968).

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1969: 31970: 11971: 11975: 119692026peak 1969 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Herbert Sperling506 F.2d 1323 (2d Cir. 1975)
  2. United States of America ex rel. Walter Weems, Jr. v. H. W. Follette, Warden of Green Haven State Prison, Stormville, N.Y.414 F.2d 417 (2d Cir. 1969)
  3. United States v. Robert Denoia451 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1971)
  4. United States v. William Daniel Roberts, Jr.408 F.2d 360 (2d Cir. 1969)
  5. United States v. Barker313 F. Supp. 987 (D. Del. 1970)
  6. United States v. William Proner405 F.2d 943 (2d Cir. 1969)

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
Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339 (1958) 639
United States v. Scandifia, 390 F.2d 244 (2d Cir. 1968) 31
United States v. Messina, 388 F.2d 393 (2d Cir. 1968) 30

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