CLINTON THIEL STEPHENS, 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 presented was sufficient to sustain the conviction for mail fraud.
Appellant was convicted of violating the mail fraud statute. He appealed, arguing his motion for acquittal should have been granted and that there was…
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 Fatal Variance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The appellant was tried and convicted of violating the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341. ' He seeks a reversal because: (1) his motion for a judgment of acquittal made at the conclusion of the Government’s case was not granted; and (2) an alleged fatal variance between the evidence and the charge contained in the indictment.
When the motion for acquittal was made, the trial judge reserved his ruling until the conclusion of the evidence. The motion was not renewed and there was no ruling on it. In these circumstances we must consider the state of the evidence when the motion was made. The test is whether, viewing the evidence presented most favorable to the Government, a reasonable-minded jury could accept the relevant and admissible evidence as adequate and sufficient to support the conclusion of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Riggs v. United States (5 Cir. 1960) 280 F. 2d 949.
As to the variance, the appellant points to the fact that the indictment charges use of the mails for delivery of a letter to a specific addressee named therein. He contends that the evidence fails to establish use of the mails, but even if it did there is a lack of proof that the letter in question was addressed to the person named in the indictment.
We are unable to agree with the contentions of the appellant and his interpretation of the evidence. We have carefully examined the evidence presented prior to the motion for acquittal and consider it sufficient to sustain the conviction. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314, 1315 (1935); Cortez v. United States (5 Cir. 1964) 328 F. 2d 51; Brown v. United States (5 Cir. 1964) 328 F. 2d 652; Milam v. United States (5 Cir. 1963) 322 F. 2d 104; Steiner v. United States (5 Cir. 1943) 134 F. 2d 931, cert. den. 319 U.S. 774, 63 S.Ct. 1439, 87 L.Ed. 1721; Corbett v. United States (8 Cir. 1937) 89 F. 2d 124.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weaver v. United States, 374 F.2d 878 (5th Cir. 1967)
-
United States v. Boswell, 565 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
Sanders v. United States, 416 F.2d 194 (5th Cir. 1969)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1935)
- Riggs v. United States, 280 F.2d 949 (5th Cir. 1960)
- Alton T. Milam v. United States, 322 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 1963)
- Steiner v. United States, 134 F.2d 931 (5th Cir. 1943)
- Corbett v. United States, 89 F.2d 124 (8th Cir. 1937)
- Steiner v. United States, 319 U.S. 774 (U.S. 1943)
- Molzahn v. United States, 319 U.S. 774 (U.S. 1943)
- Cortez v. United States, 328 F.2d 51 (5th Cir. 1964)
- Brown v. United States, 328 F.2d 652 (5th Cir. 1964)