Kreuter v. United States

• Decision Date: 12 June 1967
• Docket Number: No. 8870.,8870.
• Citation: 376 F.2d 654
• Parties: Gottfried William KREUTER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

376 F.2d 654 (1967)

Gottfried William KREUTER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 8870.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

May 4, 1967.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1967.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robert C. Hanna (of Hanna & Mercer), Albuquerque, N. M., for appellant.

Lewis O. Campbell, Asst. U. S. Atty. (John Quinn, U. S. Atty., and John A. Babington, Asst. U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M., on brief), for appellee.

Before LEWIS and HICKEY, Circuit Judges, and STANLEY, District Judge.

STANLEY, District Judge.

Kreuter appeals from a sentence imposed after a verdict of guilty on three counts of an indictment charging the interstate transportation of falsely made and forged securities, knowing them to have been forged and falsely made. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314.

The securities involved were three separate Western Union money orders, each drawn on a San Francisco bank and in the amounts, respectively, of $8,500 (Exhibit 1), $8,500 (Exhibit 2) and $3,800 (Exhibit 3). Each purportedly was issued in Las Vegas, Nevada; was on a regular Western Union money order form; was made payable to Kreuter; and bore the signature "W. B. Hardy" as money order agent. One recited that it had been "telegraphed from" Los Angeles; one from San Francisco; and one from Tucson. The three money orders bore the numbers of forms which, together with others, had been stolen from the Las Vegas office of Western Union. No person named W. B. Hardy was employed by Western Union, and the money orders were not signed by any authorized agent of Western Union. The money orders therefore were falsely made and forged. Each was negotiated by Kreuter in New Mexico and was transmitted through banking channels to California.

The facts stated thus far were not disputed by Kreuter. Although he did not himself testify at the trial, his version of the manner in which he came into possession of the securities was conveyed to the jury through exculpatory statements made by him to FBI agents who did testify. As related by the agents, Kreuter's story to them was that he had won $30,000 in a three-day session of poker and gin rummy in a Las Vegas hotel room; that the losers, known to him as J. C., Ned, Ike and Joe, paid him $2,000 in cash and that Ned left the room and returned with four money orders making up the balance of the amount owing him. Among the money orders were the three here involved. Kreuter insisted in his statements to the agents that he did not know that the money orders were spurious.

Operating from this base, appellant's counsel contended at the trial that the elements of knowledge and intent had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. In order for the jurors to have agreed with him, it would have been necessary for them to have accepted Kreuter's story to the agents as true. Apparently, the jurors did not believe it.

Appellant now raises four points on appeal. His first complaint is that the trial court was unduly restrictive in his voir dire examination of the jury panel. As permitted by Rule 24(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court conducted the examination of the prospective jurors. While the court embodied the substance of many of appellant's requests in the questions propounded by him, none were asked in the form requested. The purpose of the voir dire examination is to determine whether the veniremen are qualified, whether they have prejudged the case, and whether their minds are free from prejudice or bias so as to enable the parties to ascertain whether a cause for challenge exists and to ascertain whether it is expedient to exercise the right of peremptory challenge. 50 C.J.S. Juries § 273, p. 1036. The extent of the inquiry must be left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Maguire v. United States, 358 F.2d 442, 10 Cir. The exercise of that discretion should not be interfered with unless it is clearly abused. United States v. Lebron, 222 F.2d 531, 2 Cir., cert. denied, 350 U.S. 876, 76 S.Ct. 121, 100 L.Ed. 774; United States v. Dennis, 183 F.2d 201, 227, 2 Cir.

While the voir dire examination might have been more searching, it was sufficient to test the qualifications and competency of the prospective jurors to try the case. Brundage v. United States, 365 F.2d 616, 10 Cir. We perceive no prejudice to appellant and cannot say that the trial court's discretion was abused.

Appellant next attacks the trial court's instructions on criminal intent¹ and on the inference which might permissibly be drawn from flight and concealment,² contending that these instructions unduly emphasized circumstantial evidence when read in the light of evidence (admitted over objection) with respect to the cashing of a fourth money order by appellant. The fourth money order (Exhibit 4) was a Western Union money order similar to the three described in the three counts of the indictment. There was evidence that appellant attempted to negotiate it in New Mexico by opening an account at a Los Alamos bank, using it as the initial deposit. The attempt was aborted when a teller proposed that the Western Union office be called for verification of its validity. The same money order was negotiated later in California. This evidence was admissible to show a common scheme related to the crimes charged and to establish intent. Robinson v. United States, 366 F.2d 575, 10 Cir. The jury was properly instructed that this evidence was received only as it bore on the appellant's knowledge and intent.³ Bird v. United States, 187 U.S. 118, 23 S.Ct. 42, 47 L.Ed. 100; Corbin v. United States, 253 F.2d 646, 10 Cir.; Hunt v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 316 F.2d 652.

Appellant's requested instructions were not given by the court in the form submitted. We have examined the requests and the charge given by the court, and find no error in the denial of the requests. Appellant, relying upon LaConte v. United States, 330 F.2d 700, 10 Cir., argues that the court should have given his requested instructions warning against reliance upon possibility, surmise or speculation. The case is not in point. The court there dealt with the sufficiency of proof. Here, the jury was told, in clear and understandable language, that conviction could not rest upon possibilities, surmises or...