Eugеne Bernard Hamrick was indicted, convicted and sentenced on two counts, the first charging transportation in interstate commerce of a motor vehiclе knowing the same to have been stolen, the second charging the interstate transportation of goods valued in excess of $5,000.00 knowing the same to have beеn stolen. Represented by court-appointed counsel, he was tried before the court without a jury. The basis of this appeal is the denial of the defendаnt’s timely motions for dismissal and for judgment of acquittal.
One Lucian Jack Payne was separately indicted for these same offenses and entered a plea оf guilty. The court heard testimony relating to the charges against Payne and at the same time conducted the trial of Hamrick. There was testimony to the effect that Payne and one J. B. Bailey were engaged in the operation of carnival amusement rides in Louisiana; that Payne either leased, or was in the procеss of leasing, from Bailey a ferris wheel and trailer described in the second count; that Bailey employed Hamrick to work for him but after one day gave him his choice of working for either Bailey or Payne; that Hamrick chose to work for Payne in operating the ferris wheel; that Payne and Hamrick left Louisiana, taking the trailеr and ferris wheel with them, and drove to Chimney Rock, North Carolina, where they set up operations; and that Payne paid Hamrick as his employee. There was some evidence that both Payne and Hamrick assumed the name of Baker while in Chimney Rock and represented themselves as half-brothers. The Government called Payne as a witness who admitted that he had no right to remove the motor vehicle and other property from Louisiana but he exonerated Hamrick completely, stating that the latter was his employee and had no knowledge that the transported property was stolen since representations had been mаde to the defendant by Payne that the property had been leased from Bailey. Later the court recalled Payne as a witness and interrogated him at lеngth but Payne steadfastly maintained that Hamrick had no knowledge that the property was stolen.
Hamrick presented no witnesses and did not testify in his own behalf. At the closе of the Government’s evidence and following defendant’s motions for dismissal and for acquittal, the court requested and, over objection, received Hamrick’s рast criminal record and read aloud therefrom. The court observed: “You can tell more what kind of a snake you are dealing with if you can see his colоr.” The defendant’s previous motions were renewed and denied. The court then found the defendant guilty of aiding and abetting “in the larceny and certainly the transportаtion in interstate commerce of articles known to have been stolen.” However, just prior to adjournment, in the absence of the defendant, the case was reopened and J. B. Bailey wаs presented as a witness. He testified that he was the owner of the transported property, that the trailer and ferris wheel were worth roughly $11,000.00, and stated his personal conclusions and opinion concerning Hamrick’s knowledge that the property was stolen. Relative to Bailey’s testimony, the court commented: “Yes. Wеll, I am glad you did, because the evidence was not nearly as strong when I declared a verdict of guilty as it is now. Of course, I would not even have had any qualms about it — I did not to begin with —but I certainly do not now at all.” After Bailey briefly testified further the court stated: “Well, I do not have any qualms about the verdict. I did not at the time, but, of course, now it аppears that anybody would have found him guilty now. Thank you very much, Brother Bailey.”
There was no evidence properly before the court as to the value оf the “Low-Boy Trailer and an Eli #5 Ferris Wheel” described in count two as the goods alleged to have a value in excess of $5,000.00. Since the value of the transported goods is an essential element of the offense charged, a conviction under the pertinent statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2314, cannot be sustained in the absence of
*470
proof of such value. As was stated in Abbott v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956,
It was error for the court to examine the criminal record of Hamrick during the course of the trial and before verdict. In Benton v. United States, 4 Cir., 1956,
“ ‘Courts that follow the common law tradition almost unanimously have come to disallow resort by the prosecution to any kind of evidence of a defendant’s evil character to establish a probability of his guilt. * * * The State may not show defendant’s prior trouble with the law, specific criminal аcts, or ill name among his neighbors, even though such facts might logically be persuasive that he is by propensity a probable perpetrator of the crime. * * *»»
Frоm the statements of the court following the testimony of Bailey, we cannot fail to detect a note of uncertainty as to the strength of the Government’s case, even after receiving information concerning defendant’s prior criminal record. Hamrick challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and seeks a judgment of acquittal, not a new trial. Thus, the question is whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is such that the trial court might find guilt beyond a rеasonable doubt. Moore v. United States, 4 Cir., 1959,
There was no direct evidence that the defendant knew the property described in the indictment was stolen. We arе fully aware that circumstantial evidence may support a verdict of guilty though it does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. Holland v. United States, 1954,
As held by this court, Call v. United States, 4 Cir., 1959,
Reversed and remanded with directions.