James Edward Chitwood, Jr. v. United States, 226 F.2d 288, 4th Cir. (1955)

The defendant was convicted by a jury of violating internal revenue laws related to the removal of untaxed distilled spirits. Officers chased a car suspected of such violations and found the defendant and another man inside with untaxed liquor. Both men fled the scene. The defendant denied being in the car but was identified by officers. The court found the evidence sufficient to convict as fleeing the scene with untaxed liquor in the car constituted aiding and abetting the crime, regardless of ownership. The court also found the jury instructions clear that mere presence was not enough to convict without involvement in delivering, removing, or concealing the liquor. The appeals court affirmed the conviction, finding no substantial issues raised, and the mandate would issue immediately without a

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

26 views2 pages

James Edward Chitwood, Jr. v. United States, 226 F.2d 288, 4th Cir. (1955)

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 2

226 F.

2d 288

James Edward CHITWOOD, Jr., Appellant,

v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 7035.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 4, 1955.
Decided October 4, 1955.

C. Carter Lee, Rocky Mount, Va., for appellant.

Beverly A. Davis, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., Rocky Mount, Va. (John Strickler,
U.S. Atty., and Benjamin F. Sutherland, Asst. U.S. Atty., Roanoke, Va.,
on brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a criminal case in which the accused was convicted of

violation of the Internal Revenue laws in the removal of distilled spirits on
which the tax had not been paid. The case was tried before a jury and the
evidence showed that officers of the law chased an automobile which they
suspected of being engaged in violating the law and that, when they forced it to
the curb, two men who had been riding in the car jumped from it and ran away.
A quantity of untaxpaid liquor was found in the car and two fruit jars filled
therewith fell from the car and were broken when the two occupants ran away.
Appellant denied that he was in the car, but there was ample evidence to
identify him as one of the men who ran therefrom. He contends that there was
not sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty because he was not
shown to be the owner of the car or to have had any interest in the liquor. The
contention is frivolous. The fact that he was riding in a car filled with liquor
and that he ran from the officers was ample evidence that he was aiding and
abetting in the crime which was being committed whether he was the owner of
the car or the liquor or not. Harding v. United States, 4 Cir., 182 F.2d 524;
Windsor v. United States, 6 Cir., 286 F. 51; Rowan v. United States, 7 Cir., 277

F. 777; 20 Am.Jur. 1221. The complaint as to the charge of the court is

absolutely without merit. The judge made it perfectly clear that mere presence
of the appellant in the automobile would not make him guilty, if he had no
proprietary interest and no part in the delivery, removing or concealing of the
liquor. As the appeal presents no substantial question, the mandate will issue
forthwith and will not be stayed pending application for rehearing or certiorari.
2

Affirmed.