Richard Edward Kendrick v. United States, 367 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Richard Edward Kendrick v. United States, 367 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: United States v. Marvin Clyde Lincoln (ca8, 1979-01-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Marvin Clyde Lincoln
8th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
See United States v. Maisonet, 484 F.2d 1356, 1357 (4th Cir. 1973) (whether language which defendant argued was merely a complaint about official conduct constituted a threat to injure held to be an issue of fact for the jury); Kendrick v. United States, 367 F.2d 632, 633 (9th Cir. 1966) (defendant’s challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence of intent on the ground he never believed the letters would get by the prison censors and be mailed held *382 to raise an issue of fact for the jury).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard Edward KENDRICK, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
20141_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 12, 1966.
367 F.2d 632
1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4735
Willys I. Peck, San Jose, Cal., for appellant., Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., Wm. B. Shubb, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for appellee.
Chambers, Merrill.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Kendrick, while confined in a federal institution at Lompoc, California, wrote two threatening letters to the trial judge who entered the judgment that sent him[*633] there. The letters reached the judge through the mail.

Kendrick mainly attacks the sufficiency of the evidence. His defense was that he never thought that the letters would get through the censors and into the mails. But he put the letters on a ledge outside his cell, a place where mail was ordinarily picked up by prison personnel. He had no direct access to an official United States mail box.

Kendrick’s testimony did create an issue of fact as to his intent. This, the jury decided against him. The circumstantial evidence was such that the jury could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, if it chose to disbelieve him. And, it did so.

We find no error in the instructions.

Judgment affirmed.