United States v. Charles Williams, 428 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Charles Williams, 428 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Paul Suren Mosesian, United States of America v. Lawrence Clay Rocker (ca9, 1994-10-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Paul Suren Mosesian, United States of America v. Lawrence Clay Rocker
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Absent such a factual showing the district judge does not err in failing to provide a cautionary instruction. 5 See United States v. Maher, 645 F.2d 780, 783 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (court not obligated to hold hearing on voluntariness issue if not timely dispute as to that issue is raised). 36 In any event, however, we do not require a cautionary instruction where "there was ample evidence, independent of the challenged admission[ ], linking [the defendant] to the crime." United States v. Williams, 428 F.2d 365, 366 (9th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 985 (1971).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Rhymes
Ariz. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Williams, 428 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1970); Kowalewski v. United States, 418 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1969); Martinez v. State of Utah, 412 F.2d 853 (10th Cir. 1969); United States v. Hart, 407 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 395 U.S. 917 , 89 S.Ct. 1766 , 23 L.Ed.2d 231 (1969); United States v. DeSisto, 329 F.2d 929 at 935 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 377 U.S. 979 , 84 S.Ct. 1885 , 12 L.Ed.2d 747 (1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Charles WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
24896.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 19, 1970.
428 F.2d 365
Alvin S. Michaelson (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., Charles Williams, pro se, for defendant-appellant., Howard B. Frank (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Chief, Criminal Division, Brian J. O’Neill, Asst. U. S. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Hufstedler, Trask, Powell.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Williams appeals from his conviction for theft from Home Savings and Loan Association in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b).

He claims that the jury was incorrectly instructed in four particulars:

First, he complains of an instruction telling the jury that it could infer Williams’ participation in the theft from his unexplained possession of recently stolen property. We have frequently approved the challenged instruction (e.g., Kowalewski v. United States (9th Cir. 1969) 418 F.2d 118; Corey v. United States (9th Cir. 1962) 305 F.2d 232, cert. denied (1963) 371 U.S. 956, 83 S.Ct. 511, 9 L.Ed.2d 503), and we decline to reexamine the point.

Second, he claims there was error in giving a “joint purpose” instruction. No exception was taken to the instruction, and we cannot say that the giving of it was plain error under the circumstances of his case. (White v. United States (9th Cir. 1968) 394 F.2d 49.)

Third, he urges that the failure of the court, on its own motion, to instruct the jury to treat the statements of the appellant with caution requires reversal. There is no plain error in failing to give such a cautionary instruction where, as[*366] here, there was ample evidence, independent of the challenged admissions, linking Williams to the crime. (Stapleton v. United States (9th Cir. 1958) 17 Alaska 713, 260 F.2d 415.)

Fourth, he contends that the court improperly instructed the jury that it could find Williams, who had been charged with robbery, guilty of theft, a lesser included offense. The instruction was proper under the teaching of Sansone v. United States (1965) 380 U.S. 343, 350, 85 S.Ct. 1004, 13 L.Ed.2d 882. See also Little v. United States (9th Cir. 1969) 417 F.2d 912.

We have examined Williams’ remaining contentions, and we find them without sufficient merit to warrant discussion

The judgment is affirmed.