479 F.2d 65 (9th Cir. 1973), 72-1899, United States v. Alsop
|Citation:||479 F.2d 65|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Daniel ALSOP, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||May 14, 1973|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
L. Earl Hawley (argued), Las Vegas, Nev., for defendant-appellant.
Raymond B. Little, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Joseph L. Ward, U. S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before ELY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, [*] District Judge.
WALLACE, Circuit Judge:
A jury found Richard Daniel Alsop guilty of the crime of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He appeals claiming that the indictment was duplicitous, that certain jury instructions were erroneous and that the trial court erred in refusing his requested instructions. We affirm.
On November 3, 1971, Alsop entered the Nevada National Bank in Las Vegas, Nevada. He approached the teller and asked for two rolls of pennies in exchange for a dollar. When the teller placed the pennies on the counter, Alsop told her, "Give me the rest of the paper money." The teller laughed, thinking it was a joke. Alsop produced a toy gun and a paper bag and told the teller that he was not kidding. Alsop took the bag, then filled with money, and left. He was captured a short distance from the bank with the money and toy gun. 1
Alsop contends that the indictment was duplicitous because it placed into issue elements of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (d), as well as those of § 2113(a). We disagree. The indictment is ordinarily sufficient when, as here, the wording of the indictment is taken directly from the statute. See United States v. Ansani, 240 F.2d 216, 223 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 936, 77 S.Ct. 813, 1 L.Ed.2d 759 (1957); Brown v. United States, 222 F. 2d 293, 296 (9th Cir. 1955). That the statute and the indictment use the disjunctive phrase "by force and violence, or by intimidation" does not mean the indictment is duplicitous. See United States v. Ansani, supra, 240 F.2d at 223. Only one offense was charged and Alsop was well aware of it. Furthermore, the indictment specifically advises Alsop that he is accused of acting "in volation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113(a)."
Alsop proposed five jury instructions which were refused by the trial court. "[W]e have carefully considered the instructions as a whole and find that they fully cover the applicable...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP