UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
RUSSELL EDWARD WEBB, 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 defendant's unexplained palm print on a stolen and forged check was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for obstruction of correspondence.
A navy allotment check was stolen, forged, and cashed with a forged endorsement. The defendant's palm print was the only identified latent print on th…
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 Obstruction Of Correspondence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Russell Edward Webb, appealing from a judgment of conviction for obstruction of correspondence, 18 U.S.C. § 1702, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict.
■ The record disclosed that a navy allotment check, drawn in Cleveland, Ohio, should have been delivered^ in the ordinary course of the mails to the payee in Portsmouth, Virginia, on June 1, 1971. However, on that date instead of being received by the payee, the check was cashed with a forged endorsement at a bank in nearby Suffolk, Virginia. Webb was neither known to the payee nor authorized to handle the check, but his outer left-hand palm print was the only-identified latent print on the check. Webb’s print was located on the face of the check near the left edge.
We conclude that Webb’s unexplained placing of his palm print on the check during the short period between the time it should have been received by the payee and the time it was unlawfully cashed was sufficient for the jury to infer that Webb acted “with design to obstruct the correspondence” in violation of § 1702. His palm print could have been placed on the check only during the commission of the crime. He claimed no access to it while it was in the custody of the postal service or after it had been cashed at the bank. Cf. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973); United States v. Owens, 424 F. 2d 266 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 844, 91 S.Ct. 89, 27 L.Ed.2d 81 (1970); United States v. Wade, 364 F. 2d 931, 934 (6th Cir. 1966); Doub v. United States, 341 F. 2d 572 (9th Cir. 1965).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1973)
- United States v. Wade, 364 F.2d 931 (6th Cir. 1966)
- Doub v. United States, 341 F.2d 572 (9th Cir. 1965)
- United States v. Owens, 424 F.2d 266 (6th Cir. 1970)
- Wiggins v. United States, 400 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1970)
- Stebbins v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield, 400 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1970)