United States v. Jimmy Charles Coleman, 524 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Jimmy Charles Coleman, 524 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Roman (fladistctapp, 2008-06-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Roman
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See United States v. Sledge, 546 F.2d 1120 (4th Cir.1977); United States v. Coleman, 524 F.2d 593, 594 (10th Cir.1975) (stating that "information of rights by written form has been upheld in many Circuits."); N. Carolina v. Strobel, 164 N.C.App. 310 , 596 S.E.2d 249, 253 (2004) ("[I]t is not essential that the warnings required by Miranda be given in oral rather than written form.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Strobel
N.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Ed. 2d 588 (1977); United States v. Coleman, 524 F.2d 593, 594 (10th Cir. 1975); United States v. Bailey, 468 F.2d 652, 659-60 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Alexander, 441 F.2d 403, 404 (3d Cir. 1971); United States v. Van Dusen, 431 F.2d 1278, 1280 (1st Cir. 1970); United States v. Johnson, 426 F.2d 1112, 1115 (7th Cir.), cert denied, 400 U.S. 842 , 27 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Whitfield v. State
Del. · 1987 · confidence medium
United *16 States v. Coleman, 10th Cir., 524 F.2d 593, 594 (1975); United States v. Howard-Arias, 4th Cir., 679 F.2d 363, 366 (1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 874 , 103 S.Ct. 165 , 74 L.Ed.2d 136 . 2 Authentication or identification under D.R.E. 901(a) requires “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” The State may authenticate a weapon it claims was the actual instrumentality of a crime in two ways.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Thomas Norman Gay
10th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
United States v. Wood, 695 F.2d at 462 ; United States v. Gagnon, 635 F.2d 766, 770 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1018 , 101 S.Ct. 3008 , 69 L.Ed.2d 390 (1981); United States v. Zink, 612 F.2d at 514 ; United States v. Coleman, 524 F.2d 593, 594 (10th Cir.1975) (per curiam); O’Quinn v. United States, 411 F.2d 78 (10th Cir.1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Appleton
R.I. · 1983 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Sledge, 546 F.2d 1120, 1122 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 1185 , 51 L.Ed.2d 588 (1977); United States v. Coleman, 524 F.2d 593, 594 (10th Cir.1975); United States v. Alexander, 441 F.2d 403, 404 (3rd Cir.1971); United States v. Van Dusen, 431 F.2d 1278 (1st Cir.1970); United States v. Osterburg, 423 F.2d 704 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 914 , 90 S.Ct. 2216 , 26 L.Ed.2d 571 (1970).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Johnson
D. Conn. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Sledge, 546 F.2d 1120, 1122 (4th Cir.1977) (noting agreement among circuits to have considered the issue that “it is not essential that the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona ... must be given in oral rather than written form.”) (citing United States v. Coleman, 524 F.2d 593 (10th Cir.1975); United States v. Alexander, 441 F.2d 403 (3rd Cir.1971); United States v. Van Dusen, 431 F.2d 1278 (1st Cir.1970); United States v. Osterburg, 423 F.2d 704 (9th Cir.1970)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Jimmy Charles COLEMAN, Appellant
75-1040.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Oct 20, 1975.
524 F.2d 593
1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12317
James H. Payne, Sandlin & Payne, Muskogee, Okl., for appellant., Richard A. Pyle, U. S. Atty., and Betty Outhier Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Lewis, Hill, Seth.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant, convicted of knowingly possessing stolen merchandise, attacks the rulings of the trial court which admitted declarations made by the appellant after an allegedly improper presentation of his rights and allowed introduction of a tire into evidence.

Prior to trial, appellant was interviewed on four different occasions by an FBI agent. At the first interview, local police informed the agent that the appellant had just been orally informed of his Miranda rights. After determining the appellant could read, write, and understand the English language at that initial questioning, the agent gave the appellant the simplified FBI advice of rights form to read and asked appellant whether he had any questions and if he understood his rights at every interview thereafter.

Appellant argues a strict reading of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, and cases decided under it require the accused be orally informed of his rights. The cases he cites for this proposition, however, do not support his argument. In both United States v. Springer, 460 F.2d 1344 (7th Cir.), and Bailey v. United States, 410 F.2d 1209 (10th Cir.), the FBI form was read to the accused, which procedure was held to constitute adequate notice of his rights. However, there is no language in either of these cases to suggest the oral nature of the presentation was the critical ingredient. Further, information of rights by written form has been upheld in many Circuits. United States v. Van Dusen, 431 F.2d 1278 (1st Cir.); United States v. Kress, 446 F.2d 358 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 405 U.S. 932, 92 S.Ct. 989, 30 L.Ed.2d 807 (1972); and Bell v. United States, 382 F.2d 985 (9th Cir.). Appellant’s first issue on appeal is without merit.

At trial, the Government introduced a tire after one of the persons who purchased tires from the appellant identified it as having the characteristics of the tire he had bought. This purchaser also testified that at the time of the sale, the appellant had admitted these were stolen tires which had been sold to him. The tire on exhibit was also identified by a Government agent as the same tire he had received from another person who had bought tires from the appellant. The agent’s identification was further substantiated by the date and initials he had scratched into the tire when it was turned over to him by the purchaser. Finally, the manufacturer’s representative identified the characteristics of the tires stolen as those of the exhibit.

We have consistently held that when the trial court deems a physical exhibit to be in. substantially the same condition as when the crime occurred and on that basis admits the article into evidence, that decision will not be overturned except for a clear abuse of discretion. Reed v. United States, 377 F.2d 891 (10th Cir.), and Rosemund v. United States, 386 F.2d 412 (10th Cir.). We find no abuse of discretion here in determining the identification of the exhibit sufficient to establish a clear chain of custody. O’Quinn v. United States, 411 F.2d 78 (10th Cir.).

The trial court properly admitted the appellant’s declarations and the tire into evidence, and we affirm the conviction.

Affirmed.