Court Opinion

ID: 9449870
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:26:01.803886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:01.495336
License: Public Domain

JONES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot join the majority in the determination that there is enough evidence to submit the question of the guilt of Hendrix.
Hendrix had the blank checks, but no witness said he filled in the blanks. Hendrix borrowed a typewriter and the blanks on the checks were filled in with a typewriter, but no witness said that Hendrix typed the checks or that they were typed with the borrowed typewriter. Hendrix had Barnett’s identification cards and Barnett’s name was used as the payee of the forged checks, but no witness said that the cards were used by Hendrix or anyone else in connection with the negotiation of the forged checks, on in any other fashion. Hendrix’ car, with Hendrix driving, took the check blanks to Pascagoula, but no witness said that the check blanks were then filled in, or that they were filled in by Hendrix or *978by anyone with whom he was acting in concert. Hendrix obtained the checks with the purpose of converting them into forgeries to be passed and money obtained, but no witness identified Hendrix with filling in the blanks; no witness, except Corlew, identified Hendrix as cashing the checks; no witness identified Hendrix as aiding or abetting another or others in doing so.
Corlew identified Hendrix as cashing the Count 8 cheek with him, then wavered, and on examination by counsel for Hendrix he repudiated his identification and named Sykes as the person who had delivered him the check. Certainly Cor-lew’s initial identification of Hendrix cannot be used to convict Hendrix of cashing the check. Nor, I submit, can Cor-lew’s impeachment of his own testimony be regarded as substantive evidence of the cashing of the check by Sykes and the basis of the conviction of Hendrix as an aider and abettor of Sykes in cashing the check. One or the other of Cor-lew’s statements was false, and perhaps both were false. One statement offsets the other and neither should be given any testimonial value. Cf. Ill Wigmore on Evidence 687, § 1018.
But if the majority position is correct in concluding that Corlew’s identification of Sykes is, with the evidence of Hendrix’ obtaining the blank cheeks and bringing them to Pascagoula, enough to permit an inference of aiding and abetting of Sykes by Hendrix, I think the conviction of Hendrix must be set aside for another reason. When Corlew cashed the check he suspected it was not good. When Corlew put the forgery into the flow of commerce he knew it was not good. This being so, the offense here charged was not committed. United States v. Gardner, 7th Cir. 1948, 171 F.2d 753.
I have no difference with the statement of the majority that an accused can be convicted of aiding and abetting a principal, even though the identity of the principal is not established. But I do not agree that the conviction should be sustained where no connection is shown between the accused and the unknown principal. The checks were stolen property and the evidence might have sustained a conviction of Hendrix of interstate transportation of stolen property, but he was not so charged. The evidence might have sustained a conviction of Hendrix of a conspiracy to transport interstate forged securities, but he was not so charged. The trial judge, during a portion of the trial, thought the offense charged was conspiracy. I am not fully persuaded that this erroneous notion was ever entirely out of the case. I dissent.