HOMER HYCHE, APPELLANT,
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 was sufficient to submit the case to the jury for conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(4).
Appellant was convicted for removing, depositing, or concealing untaxed alcohol. There was direct evidence of appellant transferring untaxed whiskey f…
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 Construction Of Criminal Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The sole question presented by this appeal from a conviction for “removing, depositing, or concealing” untaxed alcohol, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(4), is the sufficiency of the evidence to submit the case to the jury.
There was substantial direct evidence that appellant actively engaged in the transfer of 160 gallons of moonshine whiskey from his own car to the trunk of another vehicle. So much is, for all practical purposes, admitted. But appellant maintains that this activity does not constitute an offense within the statute under which he was charged.
It may be that the transfer of untaxed alcohol from one vehicle to another does not make out a case of “removal.” See Price v. United States, 5 Cir., 150 F. 2d 283; United States v. Perfetti, D.C.E.D.Pa., 91 F.Supp. 909. But the act of placing the whiskey in the trunk of the car, considered in connection with appellant’s flight to avoid apprehension, clearly amounts to “depositing” and “concealing” within the intendment of the statute. See Ingram v. United States, 5 Cir., 241 F. 2d 708. And proof of any one of the prohibited acts, even though “removing,” “depositing” and “concealing” were charged conjunctively, is sufficient for conviction. Price v. United States, supra.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Verdugo v. United States, 402 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1968)
-
United States v. Davis, 369 F.2d 775 (4th Cir. 1966)
-
United States v. Goss, 353 F.2d 671 (4th Cir. 1965)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Price v. United States, 150 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1945)
- Ingram v. United States, 241 F.2d 708 (5th Cir. 1957)