Harold Franklin Smith and Aubrey Lee Crumley v. United States
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision. The 15 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Michael Joseph Gurleski and Dorothy Villafranca v. United States of America, Frank Smith v. United States (5th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Brito (5th Cir. 1998)
- United States v. Pablo Salinas Brito Adrian Brito Jesus Salinas Brito Adan Brito Ignacio Berumez Brito Benjamin Hernandez Rodriguez (5th Cir. 1998)
- State v. Lutz (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)
- United States v. Sheldon Serlin and Marvin Phillips (7th Cir. 1976)
- United States v. Irma Madaline Keller (3d Cir. 1975)
- United States v. Terrell (District Court, S.D. New York 1975)
- United States v. William Alex Roberts (5th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. James Phillip Peterson (7th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Esmael Gonzales Musquiz (5th Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Kelley (District Court, S.D. New York 1971)
- Gene Hickman v. United States (5th Cir. 1969)
- Orvel Winston Lloyd v. United States (5th Cir. 1969)
- Joel Rubin v. United States (5th Cir. 1969)
- Lloyd v. United States (5th Cir. 1969)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Petitioners urge that in its opinion of February 3, 1966, this Court overlooked certain contentions and previous decisions.
As to the identification of Crumley by the deputy tax collector as the man who bought a license plate which later appeared on a truck delivering raw materials to the distillery in question, Petitioner Crumley contends that it lacked probative value.
The identification of Crumley on direct examination was weakened somewhat when the witness stated on cross-examination that although Crumley certainly resembled the man, he was seen only one time for a few minutes and the witness declined to positively identify him. This testimony merely presented questions of weight and credibility, and cannot be said to be devoid of probative value when considered with the other evidence in the case.
Petitioners re-urge four cases decided by this Court in support of the allegation that the evidence was insufficient to support these convictions, particularly as to Crumley. McFarland v. United States, 5 Cir. 1960, 273 F.2d 417; Fowler v. United States, 5 Cir. 1956, 234 F.2d 697; Matthews et al. v. United States, 5 Cir. 1949, 177 F.2d 278; and Cantrell v. United States, 5 Cir. 1946, 158 F.2d 517.
In McFarland, we affirmed a conviction on a stronger case than that presented here, and approved a charge of the trial court that “mere presence at the scene of an unlawful distillery with nothing more doesn’t constitute possession.” Fowler and Cantrell stand for the same proposition, and in Matthews there was no evidence of defendant’s presence. These three cases were reversed for a *696 complete lack of evidence to warrant verdicts of guilty, and none of them compel reversal here.
Aside from the identification of Crum-ley previously referred to, the evidence showed that he was driving a car which contained sugar and bran remnants and fruit jar labels toward the still when he sighted an agent’s car and attempted to flee before he was arrested. This presents a much stronger case than those showing no more than mere presence at or approach to a still location and a reasonable explanation therefor.
Petitioners re-urge their contention that the charge was erroneous in part and the jury was free to apply either the correct or incorrect principle on aiding and abetting. This position is without merit, and we reiterate that the instructions as a whole were complete and substantially correct, and could not have confused the jury.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.