## Facts

- Backun and Zucker were indicted under the National Stolen Property Act for transporting stolen merchandise worth more than $5,000 in interstate commerce, knowing it was stolen.
- Zucker was arrested at a pawnshop in Charlotte, North Carolina, with a large quantity of silverware, part of which was shown to have been recently stolen.
- Zucker pleaded guilty and testified for the government against Backun.
- Zucker testified he bought all the silverware from Backun in New York, partly on credit, and that the silverware had been concealed in Backun’s residence.
- Zucker testified there was little market for secondhand silverware in New York but a good market in the South; he customarily traveled in the South, which Backun knew.
- Zucker testified he told Backun he wanted to take the silverware “on the road,” and that Backun sold it to him with that understanding.
- Zucker paid about $1,400, far below other evidence of the silverware’s value, supporting an inference that Backun knew the goods were stolen.
- Part of the silverware was wrapped in a laundry bag; a laundry ticket was used to link the bag to Backun’s prior possession.
- Backun was convicted at trial; he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that Backun sold stolen silverware in New York, knowing Zucker would take it “on the road,” was sufficient to convict Backun as a principal for interstate transportation of stolen goods.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the transported stolen merchandise had a value of at least $5,000.
3. Whether a laundry ticket used to identify a laundry bag connecting the silverware to Backun was properly admitted.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence supported treating Backun as a principal because he knowingly aided and abetted the interstate transportation, even though Zucker physically transported the goods.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the value exceeded $5,000.
- The court upheld admission of the laundry ticket as part of the circumstantial proof linking the goods to Backun.

## Legal Principles

- A person who knowingly aids or abets the interstate transportation of stolen property may be convicted as a principal for that transportation.
- For accomplice liability, it is sufficient that the defendant knowingly provides assistance that facilitates the principal’s offense; the defendant need not personally perform the interstate act.
- Knowledge that one’s conduct will assist the commission of the crime, coupled with providing that assistance, can support liability even where the principal carries out the final criminal act.
- The statutory value element may be proved through witness testimony and circumstantial evidence supporting the jury’s valuation finding.
- Circumstantial identifying evidence may be admitted when it tends to connect the defendant to the stolen property and corroborate witness testimony.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Backun’s conviction, concluding that a seller of stolen goods who knowingly supplies them with awareness they will be taken “on the road” can be liable as a principal for interstate transportation by aiding and abetting, and that the evidence supported both the $5,000 value threshold and the challenged identification evidence.


Backun v. United States, 112 F.2d 635 (4th Cir. 1940)