Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lowell Scott FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1974-07-30
Citations: 500 F.2d 69
Docket Number: No. 74-1085
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lowell Scott FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 500
Pages: 69–72

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lowell Scott FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 74-1085.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued June 17, 1974.
Decided July 30, 1974.
McCree, Circuit Judge, filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Henry E. Hughes, Tackett, Keller, Hughes & Roney, Lexington, Ky., for defendant-appellant.
Robert M. Murphy, Asst. U. S. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee; Eugene E. Siler, U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., on brief.
Before WEICK, EDWARDS and Mc-CREE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Fields has appealed from his conviction and sentence for receiving and possessing a shotgun after he had been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a) (1). In his previous trial the jury failed to agree, resulting in a mistrial.
Fields contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of commerce and possession required by the statute. The proof was to the effect that the shotgun was manufactured in Spain, shipped to a dealer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and was sold to a company in Lexington, Kentucky. The shotgun was purchased by one, Mitchell, who loaned it to his son. The shotgun was stolen from the son, and it turned up in the possession of Fields.
Fields was observed by a state police officer, holding the shotgun in his hands while riding as a passenger in an automobile, and he was arrested.
In our opinion there was sufficient evidence that the weapon had traveled in commerce, and affected commerce. United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971); United States v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973).
The District Court did not err in refusing to strike from the indictment language which described the nature of the felonies of which Fields had been previously convicted, nor in admitting evidence relative thereto. At his previous trial Fields had stipulated his felony convictions, but made no offer so to stipulate in his second trial.
We find no error in the appointment of counsel by the Court to represent Fields when he had no funds to employ counsel of his own choosing. In our opinion Fields' claim that he was not adequately represented is not supported by the evidence. Beasley v. United States, 491 F.2d 687 (6th Cir. 1974).
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.