United States v. Francis Ravel

Bad Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 4165·930 F.2d 721·1991 WL 51329·15 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 147·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 5874
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 11, 199189-50247California2,429 words

Opinion

Opinion

Leavy, J.

A jury convicted Francis Ravel (“Ravel”) on two of three counts of possessing stolen goods. Ravel now appeals, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss all but one count, by denying his request for the use of expert testimony and rejecting his requested jury instruction on the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), by failing to answer properly a question posed by the jury during its deliberations, and by denying his motion for a new trial based on allegedly inflammatory comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On January 14, 1986, an interstate shipment of Epson computer equipment was stolen in Ontario, California. The driver of the truck from which the goods were taken reported the theft to the local police and to persons at Epson’s warehouse in Carson, California. Epson West, a regional distributor of Epson computer equipment, did not notify local dealers of the theft until March 1986, when it was announced in the company’s quarterly newsletter. As an Epson retailer, Ravel received a copy of the newsletter.

Meanwhile, Ravel as the owner of Olympic Sales Company of Los…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.