Rich v. United States, 23940.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 23940.,23940. |
| Citation | 384 F.2d 887 |
| Parties | Virgil RICH, Jr., and Don E. Gifford, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Gordon Macdowell, Dallas, Tex., for Gifford.
Ben Gilbert, Fort Worth, Tex., for Rich.
William O. Callaway, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.
Before BELL, COLEMAN and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
Appellants were convicted of aiding and abetting the forging and passing of postal money orders in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2 and 500. We have considered all claims of error asserted by each appellant and have reviewed the record in full detail.
The evidence was more than adequate to sustain the verdict as to each appellant.
Evidence of a shared apartment and illicit living arrangements between appellants and two women charged in the same indictment and a third woman from whom the money orders were taken, was properly admitted. The incidents and matters claimed by appellants to be unrelated showed accessibility of the money orders and the opportunity to take them from the owner and tended to show the scheme or arrangement to take and cash the money orders and to divide the proceeds and to obtain and use documents that would identify the person cashing the money orders as the named payee. That this evidence tended to show appellants to be persons not of good character, when their character had not been put in issue, did not make it inadmissible. Cochran v. United States, 310 F.2d 585, 589 (8th Cir. 1962). The evidence of meretricious relationships was not objected to, but we have considered whether it was so prejudicial as to constitute plain error under Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.P. requiring reversal. It was properly admitted.
Evidence was introduced without objection by appellants that the two women defendants had pleaded guilty. The court charged the jury that the appellants were not to be prejudiced by the guilty pleas of the women. There was no objection to the charge. Nevertheless we have considered it and find it adequate.
There were brief references in testimony that appellants, while living in the communal apartment, were not contributing to the support of their children (by other women) who lived elsewhere. The testimony was not objected to. It was not so prejudicial to constitute plain error, if prejudicial at all considering the other evidence, properly admitted, of the living arrangements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abernathy v. United States
...discredit appellant\'s character was only incidental and is no valid ground for excluding such testimony * * *" See, Rich v. United States, 384 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1967); United States v. Deaton, 381 F.2d 114 (2nd Cir. A primary issue in this case was the identity of the individual who signe......
-
U.S. v. Pate, 76-1407
...Jerry Edward Pate, and not against Eddie Wayne Pate. Under these circumstances, we find no reversible error. See Rich v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 384 F.2d 887, 888; United States v. Freundlich, 2 Cir., 1938,95 F.2d 376, 378-79. The subordinate contention that this was hearsay is palpabl......
-
U.S. v. Maestas
...and is no valid ground for excluding such testimony. See Abernathy v. United States, 402 F.2d 582 (8th Cir. 1968); Rich v. United States, 384 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1967); United States v. Deaton, 381 F.2d 114 (2nd Cir. 1967); and Cochran v. United States, 310 F.2d 585 (8th Cir. In addition, th......
-
United States v. Bellomini
...F.2d 1052 (8th Cir. 1977); U. S. v. Papia, 560 F.2d 827 (7th Cir. 1977); U. S. v. Bastone, 526 F.2d 971 (7th Cir. 1975); Rich v. U. S., 384 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1967). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recently considered specifically the admissibility of evidence of attempt to influence the......