United States v. Pickens, 71-1557.
| Decision Date | 31 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1557.,71-1557. |
| Citation | 465 F.2d 884 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lester Morris PICKENS, a/k/a Feelix Graham and Felix Graham, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Adrian M. Farver, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan. (Robert J. Roth, U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., with him on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Robert L. Roberts, Topeka, Kan., for defendant-appellant.
Before PICKETT, HOLLOWAY and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Pickens appeals from a conviction on a seven-count indictment charging him with knowingly transporting or causing to be transported in interstate commerce falsely made or forged securities, in violation of 18 U.S. C. § 2314 (1970). He was sentenced to imprisonment for five years on each count, to be served concurrently.
On July 21, 1970, two persons, one a black male, stole sixty-six blank Travelers Express Money Orders from the Tradeway Grocery Store at Odessa, Texas. Seven of these money orders, which later became the basis for the indictment, were cashed in four Kansas cities. Each of these money orders named Felix Graham as payee, and Beth Graham as drawer. In each instance the person cashing the money orders assumed the name of Felix Graham and in several transactions produced for identification a driver's license issued by the State of Texas to Felix Graham.1
Although only one of the employees of the banks and places of business in which the money orders were cashed positively identified Pickens, the description given by other employees generally matched Pickens' appearance. In addition, Larry W. Habluetzel, an officer of the Commerce State Bank of Topeka, Kansas, testified that a tall, smartly-dressed young black male attempted to cash Travelers Express Money Order No. 52-0124960 on August 13, 1970, and that he identified himself as Felix Graham. Habluetzel refused to approve the cashing of the check because he intuitively felt that something was wrong. Because of this suspicion he photographed the check before returning it and took the license number of the car which the party entered after leaving the bank.2 Habluetzel could not positively identify Pickens as the person who presented the money order, but said that he was "a very good resemblance." His secretary, however, positively identified Pickens as the person who presented the money order. This same money order was later negotiated by a man again identifying himself as Felix Graham.
One of the stolen money orders was also presented for negotiation in Tucumcari, New Mexico, in July of 1970.3 Pickens' fingerprint was on this money order, which was admitted in evidence over objection of defense counsel, with the instruction that it could be considered "only to establish a course of conduct, or a common scheme, or a design or intent on the part of the defendant." The evidence was admissible and appellant's contentions to the contrary are without merit. United States v. Hampton, 458 F.2d 29 (10th Cir. 1972); United States v. Grider, 454 F.2d 713 (10th Cir. 1972); United States v. Carter, 433 F.2d 874 (10th Cir. 1970).
Pickens contends that the court's instruction to the jury on aiding and abetting was improper because of insufficient proof for conviction as an aider and abettor on all counts since he was positively identified as the individual cashing the money order in only one instance. 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) (1970) provides that "whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal." See United States v. Harris, 441 F.2d 1333 (10th Cir. 1971). "In order for one to be guilty as an aider and abettor the evidence must establish that he had participated in the criminal transaction or transactions charged in the indictment." United States v. Key, 458...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brinlee v. Crisp
...aiding and abetting, even though the indictment does not allege violation of the aiding and abetting statute. See, United States v. Pickens, 465 F.2d 884, 885 (10th Cir.); Giraud v. United States, 348 F.2d 820 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1015, 86 S.Ct. 627, 15 L.Ed.2d 529; Glass v. U......
-
US v. Jackson, 94-40001-01/02-SAC.
...even when the indictment does not expressly charge a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. Mucciante, 21 F.3d at 1235; United States v. Pickens, 465 F.2d 884, 885 (10th Cir.1972). With that said, the court finds that the counts 17 through 31 of the indictment expressly charge the defendants with viol......
-
U.S. v. Maestas, 76-1624
...fingerprint; it was admitted despite an absence of direct proof that the defendant was the person who cashed it.In United States v. Pickens, 465 F.2d 884, 885 (10th Cir. 1972), also a § 2314 case, the Tenth Circuit upheld the admission of a stolen money order, not charged in the indictment,......
-
U.S. v. Tecumseh
...United States v. Freeman, 514 F.2d 1184 (10th Cir. 1975); United States v. Parker, 469 F.2d 884 (10th Cir. 1972); United States v. Pickens, 465 F.2d 884 (10th Cir. 1972); United States v. Pauldino, 443 F.2d 1108 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 882, 92 S.Ct. 212, 30 L.Ed.2d 163 (197......