610 F.2d 678 (9th Cir. 1980), 79-1376, United States v. Hoke

Docket Nº:79-1376.
Citation:610 F.2d 678
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rudolph V. HOKE, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:January 03, 1980
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 678

610 F.2d 678 (9th Cir. 1980)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,


Rudolph V. HOKE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 79-1376.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 3, 1980

Howard T. Chang, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant-appellant.

Melvin K. Soong, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff-appellee.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

Before MERRILL, ANDERSON and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges.

MERRILL, Circuit Judge:

Hoke appeals his conviction following jury trial of bank larceny in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b).

The Kahala Branch of the International Savings and Loan Association (ISLA) was robbed on November 15, 1978. The government's proof by eyewitnesses was to the effect that Hoke was owner of and passenger in the car used by the robber in reaching and leaving the bank on the occasion of the robbery. Hoke's defense was alibi.

Hoke contends on appeal that the proof of guilt was insufficient to support the jury verdict. While it was very thin, still, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we cannot say as a matter of law that the jury could not have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Page 679

Hoke contends that the proof constituted an impermissible variance from the indictment. The indictment stated that ISLA was insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The proof was that it was insured by Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. We hold that variance to be without prejudice as an obvious inadvertence that did not affect substantial rights of the defendant. It is to be disregarded. United States v. Radowitz, 507 F.2d 109 (3d Cir. 1974).

Hoke contends that the court's instruction to the jury that it need only find that the amount stolen was in excess of $100 was error. The government had alleged in a bill of particulars that the amount stolen was $2,745. The tellers had testified to a different amount. The court was not in error in giving the challenged instruction. The variance between the proof and the bill of particulars was not material, since the excess over $100 was surplusage. United States v. Anderson, 532 F.2d 1218 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 839, 97 S.Ct. 111, 50 L.Ed.2d 107 (1976).

Hoke contends that the district court erred in refusing to give the requested alibi instruction. We agree.


To continue reading