From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinez v. State of Utah

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jul 15, 1969
412 F.2d 853 (10th Cir. 1969)

Opinion

No. 110-68.

July 15, 1969.

Robert M. McRae, Salt Lake City, Utah, (Hatch, McRae Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah, of counsel, with him on the brief) for appellant.

Lauren N. Beasley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, Utah (Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., and Joseph P. McCarthy, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel, with him on the brief) for appellees.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and TUTTLE and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.

Of the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.


The appellant in this habeas corpus case here complains of the Utah Statute, U.C.A. 1953, 76-38-1, which permits an inference of guilt of larceny when an accused is found in "possession of property recently stolen" when the person in possession fails to make a satisfactory explanation. The charge of the state trial court here adequately met the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136, 86 S.Ct. 279, 15 L.Ed.2d 210.

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Martinez v. State of Utah

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jul 15, 1969
412 F.2d 853 (10th Cir. 1969)
Case details for

Martinez v. State of Utah

Case Details

Full title:Ray Albert MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF UTAH, Its Duly Elected Judges…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: Jul 15, 1969

Citations

412 F.2d 853 (10th Cir. 1969)

Citing Cases

United States v. Turner

For the Government sought to prove that Turner stole the car by relying on the permissible inference of theft…

United States v. Fox

The contention that the use of the phrase, "if such possession is not satisfactorily explained," infringed…