Robert Darrell Yeargain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881 (9th Cir. 1963). · Go Syfert
Search
Robert Darrell Yeargain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881 (9th Cir. 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1979 · 2 courts · …a defendant is not entitled to know all the evidence the government intends to produce, but only the theory of the government's case. at p. 882 ✓
24 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Gladhart (ca9, 2003-06-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gladhart
9th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Similarly, the “purpose of a bill of particulars is to protect a defendant against a second prosecution for an inadequately described offense, and enable him to prepare an intelligent defense.” Yeargain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir.1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Francis B. Kendall
7th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
It is established that “a defendant is not entitled to know all the evidence the government intends to produce, but only the theory of the government’s case.” United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1181 (9th Cir. 1979) (quoting Year gain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1963) (per curiam), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 979 , 100 S.Ct. 480 , 62 L.Ed.2d 405 ); United States v. Johnson, 504 F.2d 622, 628 (7th Cir. 1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Harold Glickman AKA Hal Glickman, United States of America v. James Rowe
9th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
United States v. Winn, 577 F.2d 86, 91 (9th Cir. 1978); Yeargain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Frank Stearns Giese (2×)
9th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Accord, United States v. Andrino, 501 F.2d 1373, 1378 (9th Cir. 1974); Yeargain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1963).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Ralph F. Dreitzler, Jr., United States of America v. Ralph F. Dreitzler, Jr.
9th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
United States v. Clay, 476 F.2d 1211, 1215 (9th Cir. 1973); Yeargain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1963).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Solario
9th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
United States v. Clay, 476 F.2d 1211, 1215 (9th Cir. 1973); Yeargain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1963).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Burdette George Winn
9th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
Year-gain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1963).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Magdaleno Hermosillo-Nanez, United States of America v. Mario Carrasco-Garcia
9th Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 , 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); Yeargain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Tanner
N.D. Ill. · 1967 · confidence medium
Perhaps the best description that has been formulated was expressed in Yeargain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1963): “A defendant is not entitled to know all the evidence the government intends to produce, but only the theory of the government’s case.” (original emphasis) See United States v. Baker, 262 F.Supp. 657, 674 (D.D.C.1966).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert E. Morgan v. United States of America, (Two Cases)
9th Cir. · 1967 · confidence medium
Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77 , 47 S.Ct. 300 , 71 L.Ed. 545 (1927), Yeargain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1962), Rodella v. United States, 286 F.2d 306, 310 (9th Cir. 1960). (3) Motion for Discovery and Inspection.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Baker
D.D.C. · 1966 · confidence medium
United States v. Bentvena, supra note 38 . 41 . 28 F.R.D. 329 (S.D.N.Y.1961). 42 . 15 F.R.D. 278 (S.D.N.Y.1953). 43 . 18 U.S.C. § 3500 . 44 . 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1963). 45 . 135 F.2d 668, 673 (2d Cir. 1943). 46 . 205 F.Supp. 604, 605 (D.C.D.Mass. 1962). 47 . 189 F.Supp. 532 (D.C.D.Conn.1960). 48 . 210 F.Supp. 589 (D.C.N.D.Ill.1962). 49 . 18 U.S.C. § 3432 . 50 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Richard L. Cook v. United States
9th Cir. · 1965 · confidence medium
Yeargain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1963).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Anthony T. Santos, Anthony C. Cepeda, Tito Naputi, David Lujan, Vicente M. Santos, Pedro Q. Salas, Juan Q. Salas
9th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yeargain v. United States, 314 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1963).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Boria
D.P.R. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yeargain v. United States, 9 Cir., 314 F.2d 881 ; United States v. Yetman, 196 F.Supp. 569, 570 (D.C.Conn.1961): The leading case on the question of the identity of the informer is Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert Darrell YEARGAIN, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
18186.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 11, 1963.
314 F.2d 881
1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5922
John F. Bremer, Downey, Cal., for appellant., Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Criminal Section, and A. Robert Throckmorton, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Barnes, Jertberg, Pence, Per Curiam.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from a conviction by the trial court of two counts of violating Section 472 [1] of Title 18 United States Code, uttering counterfeit money. It is undisputed that the money passed in each instance was counterfeit. While some question of identification of the appellant as the “passer” was made below, that point, decided adversely to appellant, is not raised on appeal.

The primary question raised is this:

Is the fact appellant testified he ’“washed” a counterfeit $20 bill (a statement proved false by expert testimony, if the expert was believed) sufficient to permit the jury to infer a guilty knowledge on the part of appellant that the "bills were counterfeit, i. e., that he had .an intent to defraud?

We hold this was a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact; a determination we will not disturb. Sandez v. United States, 9 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 239. We must view the evidence .and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the government. Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680; C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co. v. United States, 9 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 489, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 892, 73 S.Ct. 211, 97 L.Ed. 690.

A second and secondary question raised is whether the trial court erred in granting two but denying three of the five items requested in a Bill of Particulars.

Items 1 and 2, plus the indictment returned, informed appellant as to (1) the denominations of the two bills; (2) that they were Federal Reserve Notes; (3) the date of passing; (4) the exact time of day; and (5) the state, county, city and exact street location where each bill was allegedly passed.

Denied to appellant were the names of the persons receiving the bills, and the time and place where those who received the bills first “became aware” or “discovered” the bills were counterfeit. Eleven days before trial the government advised appellant’s counsel who the recipient of each bill was.

The purpose of a bill of particulars is to protect a defendant against a second prosecution for an inadequately described offense, and enable him to prepare an intelligent defense. Remmer v. United States, 9 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 277, 281. A defendant is not entitled to know all the evidence the government intends to produce, but only the theory of the government’s case. Remmer v. United States, supra, p. 282; United States v. Caserta, 3 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 905.

The granting or refusal to grant the bill of particulars is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Wong Tai v. United States, 1927, 273 U. S. 77,47 S.Ct. 300, 71 L.Ed. 545; Rodella v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 286 F.2d 306, 310, certiorari denied 365 U.S. 889, 81 S.Ct. 1042, 6 L.Ed.2d 199.

Its function is not to provide a defendant with names of government witnesses. Duke v. United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 721, 729.

[*883] Appellant’s substantial rights were not prejudiced, and no showing of surprise was made at the trial, nor any continuance asked. Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 1961, 289 F.2d 598; Schino v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 209 F.2d 67, 69-70.

A reading of the entire transcript clearly indicates appellant received a fair trial. No error has been established.

The convictions are Affirmed.

1

. Ҥ 472. Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities

“Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.”