John Phillip Winchester v. United States

Appellant has appealed from a conviction of interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 .

An examination of the record reveals that the specifications of error have no merit.

The only question urged on appeal is whether the trial court erred in the giving of Instruction No. 12. No objec tion was made to this instruction by appellant’s appointed trial counsel who is not the same counsel representing appellant on this appeal.

It is the contention here that trial counsel should have objected to this instruction on the theory that because of the wording of it the jury could acquit only if the defendant, (a) believed he owned some interest in the car and (b) believed he had a right to possession of it. It is claimed that this instruction erroneously required proof of some possessory interest plus a right to possession of the automobile, and is silent as to permissive use without the necessity of the user having ownership in the car. We believe the instruction would have been more appropriate and less objectionable had it used the disjunctive instead of the conjunctive. However, when this instruction is considered together with other instructions,…