TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Edward Charles Davis

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Charles DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Davis, 464 F.2d 558 (5th Cir. 1972)
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
August 2, 1972
Docket
No. 72-1604
Judges
Bell, Dyer, Clark
Citations
464 F.2d 5581972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8089

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted by a jury on a one-count indictment charging him with transporting a motorcycle in interstate commerce knowing the same to have been stolen in violation of 18 U.S. C.A.', § 2312. We affirm.

The evidence was entirely sufficient to warrant the conviction. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the district court did not err in admitting evidence showing his connection with the theft of another motorcyce on the same evening as the stolen motorcycle which was the subject matter of the indictment. Evidence of other criminal acts is admissible to show knowledge and intent when accompanied, as here, with proper instructions. United States v. McGlamory, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d 130, 136-137 ; United States v. Pittman, 5 Cir., 1971, 439 F.2d 906, 908 .

Appellant also argues that the trial court committed reversible error in sustaining the government’s hearsay objection to an extrajudicial statement of a co-defendant offered by a defense *559 witness. The proffered statement was that the co-defendant (who plead guilty and testified for the government), stated some three months prior to the crime in question that he intended to steal the same motorcycle. This co-defendant was not asked about the statement during his testimony. It was not offered to impeach him. It was offered to substantiate the contention that the motorcycle was stolen by the co-defendant rather than by appellant. The invalidity of this argument is seen in the fact that appellant was charged only with transporting the stolen motorcycle. In no event did this ruling rise to the level of harmful error.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1972: 11976: 119722026peak 1972 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. William Harvey Park531 F.2d 754 (5th Cir. 1976)
  2. United States v. Ernest Lee Abshire471 F.2d 116 (5th Cir. 1972)

Most recent

  1. United States v. William Harvey Park531 F.2d 754 (5th Cir. 1976)
  2. United States v. Ernest Lee Abshire471 F.2d 116 (5th 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
United States v. McGlamory, 441 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1971) 107
United States v. Pittman, 439 F.2d 906 (5th Cir. 1971) 7

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