James Howard Jones, AKA Richard Burdon v. United States

James Howard Jones appeals from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, convicting him of the offense of transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (1964).

The jury could have found that while Jones was in Louisville, Kentucky, one Jimmy Namchek, also in Louisville, stole a passenger automobile, and that Jones, knowing that the vehicle had been stolen, drove with Namchek to California in the automobile, where California license plates were attached to it.

Appellant argues that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury that only two essential elements are required to be proved to establish a violation of the Dyer Act, whereas there are four essential elements.

Section 2312 is quoted in the margin. Only three elements are expressly stated in this statute, namely: (1) that the automobile or aircraft had been stolen; (2) that the accused transported it in interstate commerce; and (3) that he knew it had been stolen at the time of such transportation. But inherent in these elements is a fourth element that the accused must have had the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of the rights and benefits…