UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
HENRY TIMBROOK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 trial court did not err in denying motions for acquittal or in its jury instructions.
Appellant was found guilty by a jury on five counts of violating federal statutes related to stolen property. He appealed the denial of his motions fo…
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 Permissible Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Henry Timbrook appeals from judgment of guilty and sentence to five eon- current terms of confinement for three years each, following jury verdicts of guilty under a 5-count indictment charging violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 659, 2314 and 2315. The appeal challenges (1) the correctness of the trial court’s denial of motions for acquittal as to each count made at the close of the prosecution’s case and renewed at the close of the appellant’s case, and (2) the court’s jury instructions as to permissible inferences arising from proof of possession of recently stolen property. The appellant also asserts that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence before the trial court and jury.
After a careful review of the record, we fail to find error demonstrated in either particular asserted. The proof amply supported the verdict and the jury charge was unexceptionable.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See Glasser v. United States, 1944, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1942)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)