Helberg v. United States

Decision Date27 September 1966
Docket NumberNo. 20143.,20143.
Citation365 F.2d 314
PartiesLarry Wayne HELBERG and David Landworth, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

James D. Burns, Seattle, Wash., for appellants.

William N. Goodwin, U. S. Atty., Michale J. Swofford, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Before JERTBERG and ELY, Circuit Judges, and FOLEY, Jr., District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Following trial to a jury, appellants were convicted on each count of a three count indictment, each count charging that appellants, with fraudulent intent, caused to be transported in interstate commerce from Seattle, Washington, to New York, New York, a forged security, to wit: an American Express Money Order, knowing said money order to be falsely made and forged, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2.

The money order described in Count I, is dated August 27, 1963, and is in the amount of $100.00. The money order in Count II is dated August 30, 1963, and is in the amount of $100.00. The money order in Count III is dated August 30, 1963 and is in the amount of $10.00.

Appellants make no attack on the sufficiency of the evidence to establish their guilt. An examination of the transcript of testimony discloses that the verdict of guilty returned against each defendant, on each count of the indictment, is abundantly supported. Appellants, testifying in their own behalf, denied any knowledge of, or participation in, the commission of any of the offenses charged. The members of the jury chose to reject the testimony of the defendants appellants and to place their credence in the testimony of the several witnesses for the government. The record reveals that on August 29, 1963, a burglary occurred at a Seattle pharmacy, and a number of American Express Money Orders were taken, the exact number taken does not appear in the record.

A day or two after the burglary, appellants attempted to cash American Express Money Orders at a club in Seattle, but were unsuccessful. Appellants then secured the services of two young ladies to cash the money orders for them. The young ladies testified that they cashed the three money orders set forth in the indictment at the request and direction of the appellants, and turned over to the appellants the cash which they received. Appellants testified that they were acquainted with these young ladies and lived with them at different motels during the period that the money orders were cashed, but denied any knowledge of the activities of these young ladies in connection with the cashing of the money orders.

Appellants contend that they were denied a fair trial because:

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States v. Allison, 23711.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 17, 1969
    ...v. United States, 403 F.2d 360, 366 (9th Cir. 1968); Singleton v. United States, 381 F.2d 1, 4 (9th Cir. 1967); Helberg v. United States, 365 F.2d 314, 316 (9th Cir. 1966); Bush v. United States, 267 F.2d 483, 489 (9th Cir. 1959); Medina v. United States, 254 F.2d 228 (9th Cir. 12 Singleton......
  • Osborne v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 21, 1967
    ...there was a waiver of any objection which might, in a different setting, have been properly presented." Helberg v. United States, 365 F.2d 314 (9th Cir. 1966). III (a) (iii). Hodges' statements were introduced, not as statements made during the course of a conspiracy (for they were made aft......
  • Nutter v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • May 29, 1969
    ...v. United States, 381 F.2d 1, 4 (9 Cir. 1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 1024, 88 S.Ct. 601, 19 L.Ed.2d 673 (1967); Helberg v. United States, 365 F.2d 314, 316 (9 Cir. 1966). The jury was so Appellant urges this court to re-examine the rule of this circuit, and to hold that the admission of the......
  • United States v. Desmond
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 10, 1969
    ...United States (9th Cir. 1965) 343 F.2d 49; Harper v. United States (1956) 99 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 239 F.2d 945; see also Helberg v. United States (9th Cir. 1966) 365 F.2d 314, cert. denied (1967) 385 U.S. 1010, 87 S.Ct. 718, 17 L.Ed.2d Count VII of the indictment charged Desmond with transport......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT