GRACIE L. JONES, 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 government presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gracie L. Jones was convicted for uttering a false statement to the Federal Housing Administration, claiming loan proceeds would be used for home repa…
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 Judgment Of Acquittal Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Gracie L. Jones was convicted for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1010 — wrongful uttering of a false statement to the Federal Housing Administration. The essence of the offense under this section is the uttering and publishing of false documents with intent to influence the Federal Housing Administration to insure a given loan or transaction.1 Here Mrs. Jones received $1,350 from the FHA on the strength of her application which provided that the proceeds of the loan would be used to improve the roof, replace the staircase, paint, and to make various other repairs on her house.
The Government presented witnesses who testified that Mrs. Jones made none of the improvements specified in her loan application. The defendant presented no witnesses of her own. She now challenges the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence to support the dis trict court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal and to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty.
On a motion for judgment of acquittal the test is whether, taking the view most favorable to the Government, a reasonably-minded jury might accept the relevant evidence as adequate to support a conclusion of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Lambert v. United States, 5 Cir. 1958, 261 F. 2d 799, 801.
We find that here “a reasonably-minded jury” might accept the evidence as sufficient to support the conviction.
The judgment is affirmed.
. See generally Gevinson v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 358 F. 2d 761, 763; Henninger v. United States, 10 Cir. 1965, 350 F. 2d 849, 850; Bins v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 331 F. 2d 390, 392, cert. denied 379 U.S. 880, 85 S.Ct. 149, 13 L.Ed.2d 87; United States v. Pesano, 2 Cir. 1961, 293 F. 2d 229, 231; Brilliant v. United States, 8 Cir. 1962, 297 F. 2d 385, cert. denied 369 U.S. 871, 82 S.Ct. 1140, 8 L.Ed.2d 275; Cohen v. United States, 6 Cir. 1949, 178 F. 2d 588, 591, cert. denied 339 U.S. 920, 70 S.Ct. 623, 94 L.Ed. 1344.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
United States v. Warner, 441 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1971)
-
United States v. Oakley G. Smith, 523 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
Surrett v. United States, 421 F.2d 403 (5th Cir. 1970)
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Bins v. United States, 331 F.2d 390 (5th Cir. 1964)
- Bins v. United States, 379 U.S. 880 (U.S. 1964)
- Beno v. United States, 379 U.S. 880 (U.S. 1964)
- Lambert v. United States, 261 F.2d 799 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Gevinson v. United States, 358 F.2d 761 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Brilliant v. United States, 297 F.2d 385 (8th Cir. 1962)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Roberto, 339 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1950)
- Cohen v. United States, 339 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1950)
- Cohen v. United States, 178 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1949)
- Steel Equip. Co. v. Eberhart, 369 U.S. 871 (U.S. 1962)