QUALITY EGG PRODUCTS, INC., AND SEYMOUR M. LEVIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction for introducing adulterated eggs into interstate commerce.
Appellants were charged with introducing adulterated frozen whole eggs into interstate commerce. Following a bench trial, they were found guilty.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burden Of Proof (Beyond A Reasonable Doubt) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The United States by Criminal Information charged appellants with unlawfully introducing into interstate commerce a number of cans containing frozen whole eggs which were adulterated within the meaning of 21 U.S.C.A. § 342 (a) (3), in violation of the provisions of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 331 and 333. Following a trial before the District Judge, a trial by jury having been waived, the appellants were found guilty. Appellant Levin received a fine of $750.
Whether the eggs were adulterated within the meaning of the statute was a factual issue, depending to a large extent upon conclusions to be drawn from the conditions under which they were transported and the condition of the eggs upon their arrival at their destination, about which there was some dispute. Appellants contend that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt this factual issue decided against them.
Viewing the evidence with inferences reasonably and justifiably to be drawn therefrom, most favorable to the Government, we are of the opinion that the finding of the District Judge is supported by substantial and competent evidence. Battjes v. United States, 6 Cir., 172 F. 2d 1, 4-5 and, accordingly,
It is ordered that the judgment be affirmed.