Opinion ID: 260673
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: It was pointed right up in the cage.

Text: 28       29 Q. And what did you do then? 30 A. Well, that scared me, so he told me not to get scared and I wouldn't get hurt, and to clean the drawer. 31       32 Q. And then what happened or occurred? 33 A. He said, `Don't tell them anything about this until I am gone, because,' he said, `we have got six men out here watching, and we don't want no one to get shot.' 34 This evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to draw the inference that the gun was loaded. 35 This Circuit has gone a little farther than the permissive inference rule indicated above. In Madigan v. United States, 8 Cir., 1927, 23 F.2d 180, this Court cited with approval the instruction given in United States v. Wilson, Fed.Cas. No. 16730, which allowed a rebuttable presumption that a gun used in robbing the mails was loaded. It was stated: In considering the threatening use made of fire-arms in pointing them at the custodian of the mails, he said it was not necessary that it be proved that the guns were charged, the presumption being that it was so until the contrary should be proved. 11 36 In the present case the appellant did not introduce any evidence that the gun was not loaded. Therefore under the rebuttable presumption rule there is no question but that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the gun was in fact loaded. 37 Since the evidence was sufficient under the permissive inference rule as well as the rebuttable presumption rule, it is not necessary at this time to review our position as to which rule should be applied. 38 We are convinced that none of appellant's contentions of error are valid. 39 The judgment appealed from is affirmed.