United States v. Daniel H. Sher, 418 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Daniel H. Sher, 418 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Ralph Hubert Barger (ca6, 1991-03-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ralph Hubert Barger
6th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Girard, 601 F.2d at 71 (citing United States v. Sher, 418 F.2d 914, 915 (9th Cir.1969)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ralph Hubert Barger
6th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Girard, 601 F.2d at 71 (citing United States v. Sher, 418 F.2d 914, 915 (9th Cir.1969)). 64 The standard of review for challenges to the sufficiency of evidence is whether "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Martin, 897 F.2d 1368, 1373 (6th Cir.1990) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979)). 65 Based upon the foregoing, we reject Mr. Barger's contention that there was insuff…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jones
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · confidence medium
See United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 , 100 S.Ct. 148 , 62 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979) (theft not required element of offense); United States v. Sher, 418 F.2d 914, 915 (9th Cir.1969) (government not required to show how defendant acquired property).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. George E. Girard, Jr., Paul A. Lambert
2d Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
United States v. Sher, 418 F.2d 914, 915 (9th Cir. 1969).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Daniel H. SHER, Defendant-Appellant
23748_1.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 8, 1969.
418 F.2d 914
William H. Mullen, Seattle, Wash., for appellant., John M. Darrah, Asst. U. S. Atty., Eugene G. Cushing, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.
Merrill, Koelsch, Wright.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of selling Government property without authority in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. The property sold was a blank selective service registration form or “draft card.” There was no proof of how it came into appellant’s possession.

Appellant contends that to establish guilt under § 641 the Government has the burden of proving that the property sold[*915] was stolen from the Government. He asserts that there was no such proof here. He assigns as error the failure of the court so to instruct the jury.

We must reject appellant’s contentions. He was not charged with theft or with sale of stolen property. He was charged with sale of Government property without authority. Theft is not an element of this offense; Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952), is inapplicable. Judgment affirmed.