Guffey v. United States, 7129.

• Decision Date: 14 December 1962
• Docket Number: No. 7129.,7129.
• Citation: 310 F.2d 753
• Parties: Perry Franklin GUFFEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

310 F.2d 753 (1962)

Perry Franklin GUFFEY, Appellant, v.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 7129.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

December 14, 1962.

Richard T. Sonberg, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Robert L. Berry, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl. (B. Andrew Potter, U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PICKETT, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PICKETT, Circuit Judge.

In a two count indictment, the defendant, Guffey, was charged with violating the White-Slave Traffic Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421, on two different days.He was convicted on the second count only, and appeals from a five year sentence.The second count alleged, in substance, that on the 18th day of March, 1962, Guffey unlawfully transported in interstate commerce two women from Wichita, Kansas, to Enid, Oklahoma, for the purpose of prostitution and debauchery.

The defendant attacks his conviction contending that there was an improper joinder of two separate offenses in the second count because it charged the transportation of two women.There is no merit to this contention.The gist of the offense under the statute is the interstate transportation of a woman or a girl pursuant to the proscribed intent and purpose.The simultaneous transportation of more than one woman or girl is but one offense, punishable by only one sentence, which should be charged in one count.Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905;Morlan v. United States, 10 Cir., 230 F.2d 30;Mellor v. United States, 8 Cir., 160 F.2d 757, cert. denied331 U.S. 848, 67 S.Ct. 1734, 91 L.Ed. 1858;Robinson v. United States, 10 Cir., 143 F.2d 276.Cf.Caballero v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 114 F.2d 545.Under the provisions of this statute the offense is complete when one or more women or girls are transported across a state line for any of the prohibited purposes.Wilson v. United States, 232 U.S. 563, 34 S.Ct. 347, 58 L.Ed. 728;United States v. Marks, 7 Cir., 274 F.2d 15;Williams v. United States, 4 Cir., 271 F.2d 703;Wiley v. United States, 8 Cir., 257 F.2d 900;Batsell v. United States, 8 Cir., 217 F.2d 257.The transportation of the two women from Kansas to Oklahoma is not denied.The testimony of one of them to the effect that on her part the trip was made for the purpose of prostitution in Oklahoma, and that the defendant received a portion of her earnings is undisputed.This alone is enough to sustain the conviction.Although the other, who was the defendant's wife, denied that she was guilty of any impropriety, there was an abundance of evidence that immediately after her arrival in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, she engaged in prostitution pursuant to an arrangement, referred to as an "appointment" previously made by the defendant.

When the defendant's case was called for trial, he moved to dismiss the entire jury panel for the reason that at the opening of the court a number of prisoners, including the defendant, were brought into the courtroom handcuffed allegedly in the presence of the entire jury panel.It is urged that the use of handcuffs tended to prejudice the jury panel against the defendant.There was no showing or offer to show what occurred on the occasion complained of.The motion was overruled, and no further reference was made to it.Handcuffs or manacles on a defendant in the presence of a jury during his trial may, under particular circumstances, be prejudicial to him.The disposition of such matters is, however, ordinarily left to the sound discretion of the trial court.De Wolf v. Waters, 10 Cir., 205 F.2d 234, cert. denied346 U.S. 837, 74 S.Ct. 56, 98 L.Ed. 358;Odell v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 189 F.2d 300, cert. denied342 U.S. 873, 72 S.Ct. 116, 96 L.Ed. 656.There is nothing in this record which would indicate that there was an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in regard to the use of handcuffs on prisoners, or that there was any conduct by the officers producing the handcuffed prisoners before the court, in the presence of the jury panel, which was prejudicial to the defendant.Way v. United States, 10 Cir., 285 F.2d 253.

Finally, it is urged that the court committed error in admitting into evidence two exhibits which were found in the possession of the defendant's wife in her hotel room.The wife was called as a witness for the United States.She testified that she had traveled by automobile from Wichita, Kansas to Bartlesville, Oklahoma with the defendant, and had registered at the hotel shortly after their arrival in that city, using the name of "P. Tucker".She admitted that she remained constantly in her hotel room for approximately four days, but denied that she engaged in prostitution.Three employees of the hotel testified that the witness was working in the hotel as a prostitute, and each testified that he had taken "male dates" to her room.She paid these employees a percentage of the amounts which she received from the "dates".One of the exhibits, in the handwriting of the witness, indicated an amount of money "made" on the different days she was in the hotel.The other exhibit referred to a larger total sum.The prosecution took the position that these exhibits were records of her income as a prostitute while working in the hotel in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.The witness denied that these figures on the exhibits related in any manner to earnings as a prostitute, and attempted to explain them...