Opinion ID: 396224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mrs. Hinds

Text: 21 Mrs. Hinds contends that the government did not sufficiently prove that she knew that the pulleys she bought from Turberville and Pierce were stolen. She argues that the evidence showed that she was merely the bookkeeper at Hinds Salvage Company performing the ministerial function of writing checks and that mere presence at the scene of a crime does not prove guilt. 22 We must disagree with Mrs. Hinds' assessment of the evidence. The record reflects that on several occasions Mrs. Hinds paid Turberville and Pierce for loads of stolen pulleys by making the checks payable to false names and by personally authorizing the checks' payments when the bank questioned the identities of the payees. Further, the evidence showed that Mrs. Hinds knew the true identity of Turberville and that she would only use phony names on the checks when the goods being purchased were stolen. From this we conclude that the evidence of Mrs. Hinds' guilty knowledge was sufficient to support her conviction. We also reject, for reasons already stated, her arguments on the unreliability of Turberville's and Pierce's testimony and on the government's failure to prove the value of the stolen property.