Phillips v. United States
Decision Date | 20 July 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 18833.,18833. |
Citation | 334 F.2d 589 |
Parties | William Ross PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
David M. Heilbron, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Section, David R. Nissen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, Chief Judge, and HAMLIN and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California of fifteen counts of interstate transportation of counterfeited securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (1958). Jurisdiction of this court is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1958). The issues presented by this appeal are: (1) Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on the defense of coercion; (2) was the concluding portion of the trial erroneously conducted in appellant's absence; (3) were the prosecutor's remarks in argument referring to the conviction of other members of the "ring" prejudicial; (4) was testimony of the wife of one of appellant's accomplices as to threats made to her by appellant properly admitted; and (5) did the court properly admit evidence of other instances of passing counterfeit checks?
Appellant contends that he did not have the requisite intent to be guilty of the crime charged because he was coerced into passing counterfeit checks against his will. Appellant was on parole from federal prison, but had violated his parole by drawing checks against insufficient funds for about $3,000. He contended that a police officer named Irwin from West Covina allegedly found out about the violation and threatened to turn appellant in to his parole officer unless he gave him substantial sums of money. Thereafter appellant claims he was at the mercy of this extortionist and had to counterfeit checks in order to get the money.
On the question of duress the court instructed the jury as follows: Appellant contends that this was error.
A short answer to appellant's contention is that at the conclusion of the court's instructions before the case was submitted to the jury appellant, although invited to do so, made no objection to the instruction. The record shows that the following occurred.
Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in part as follows:
"No party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection."
In the absence of plain error, Fed.R. Crim.P. 52(b), such failure to object to the court's instruction forecloses an appellant's right to object to such instruction. Herzog v. United States, 226 F.2d 561, 567-70 (9th Cir. 1955), upheld on rehearing, 235 F.2d 664 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 844, 77 S. Ct. 54, 1 L.Ed.2d 59 (1956). We have found no plain error in this instruction. The question of duress as a defense to a criminal prosecution was considered by this court in D'Aquino v. United States, 192 F.2d 338, 358 (9th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 935, 72 S.Ct. 772, 96 L.Ed. 1343 (1952), where the following instruction was given:
This instruction was held to be a correct statement of the law. The similarity between the instruction given in D'Aquino and that in the instant case is obvious.
Appellant's next contention is that the jury was instructed in his absence and that he was not present when the verdict of the jury was returned. The record shows the following events occurred. On Thursday evening, April 18, 1963, the arguments of counsel were concluded and the case was continued until the following morning at 9:45 a. m. for the instruction of the jury. At that time appellant, who was on bail, did not appear although his retained counsel was present. The court waited until 10:45 a. m., at which time the court called the case in the absence of the jury. Appellant's counsel stated that appellant's wife had told him that she and appellant had arrived at the courthouse a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez
...which controls here, is uniform in holding that threats are relevant to consciousness of guilt. See, e.g., Phillips v. United States, 334 F.2d 589, 592 (9th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1002, 85 S.Ct. 723, 13 L.Ed.2d 703 (1965). California cases agree, undermining Ortiz-Sandoval's reli......
-
People v. Snyder
...States v. Partlow (2d Cir. 1970) 428 F.2d 814; Cureton v. United States (D.C.Cir. 1968) Supra, 396 F.2d 671; Phillips v. United States (9th Cir. 1974) 334 F.2d 589, 591--592; United States v. Cureton (D.D.C.1968) Supra, 302 F.Supp. 'To look solely at the facts initially before the court wou......
-
State v. Hill
...inconsistent with his claim of innocence is admissible in evidence. State v. Mason, 394 S.W.2d 343 (Mo.Sup.Ct.1965); Phillips v. United States, 334 F.2d 589 (9 Cir.1964); Baimbridge v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 395, 350 S.W.2d 923 (Tex.Crim.App.1961); Collier v. Commonwealth, 339 S.W.2d 167 (Ky.......
-
Gilbert v. State
...Partlow (2d Cir. 1970) 428 F.2d 814; Cureton v. United States (1968) Supra, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 396 F.2d 671; Phillips v. United States (9th Cir. 1964) 334 F.2d 589, 591-592; United States v. Cureton (D.D.C.1968) Supra, 302 F.Supp. To look solely at the facts initially before the court wou......