U.S. v. Eaglin
Decision Date | 10 August 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 75-2720,75-2720 |
Citation | 571 F.2d 1069 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond EAGLIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
G. Frank Noonan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., argued, for plaintiff-appellee.
Donald J. Stang, San Francisco, Cal., argued, for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Before CHOY and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, *District Judge.
Raymond Eaglin appeals his jury conviction for conspiracy to harbor or conceal, and for willfully harboring or concealing, Carl Cletus Bowles, an escaped federal prisoner.18 U.S.C. §§ 371 & 1072.He challenges: (1) the applicability of § 1072 to his case, arguing that Bowles did not "escape from the custody of the (United States)Attorney General or from a Federal penal or correctional institution" as required by that statute; (2) the sufficiency of the instructions and evidence concerning his knowledge that Bowles was an escapee; (3) the admission of certain evidence received under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule; (4) the failure of the district court to grant a mistrial despite allegedly prejudicial publicity during the course of the trial; and (5) the effectiveness of the assistance rendered by his trial counsel.We affirm.
On May 17, 1974, Carl Bowles, a convicted murderer serving concurrent state and federal life sentences at the Oregon State Penitentiary, failed to return from a four-hour "social" pass issued to enable him to visit his niece, Joan Coberly, at a local motel.While released on the pass, Bowles was driven by Coberly to Portland, Oregon where they stayed at the homes of friends.After a few days, Coberly and Bowles were taken by a Charles Duane Armsbury to a house in Eugene, Oregon where Armsbury said he knew some people who would help them.There, they met appellant, Raymond Eaglin.The same day, in a car loaded with camping equipment, Eaglin drove Coberly and Bowles to the Willamette National Forest.
When they arrived, Eaglin helped them unload the camping equipment and showed them an elaborate bunker which he said he had constructed.He left and returned later that day with more supplies, false identification for escapee Bowles, and a gun and ammunition.He also visited the bunker a few days later, bringing additional supplies.
On June 13, 1974, Eaglin took Coberly and Bowles to an apartment attached to the rear of the home of a Mildred Wellborn in Eugene.The next morning, they left the apartment, and Coberly went shopping at a nearby grocery store.While purchasing some wine, Coberly displayed her California driver's license and was recognized by the sales clerk who notified the police.The police surrounded the area and arrested Coberly.After a shootout, however, Bowles escaped.In the course of his subsequent flight, Bowles kidnapped and killed an elderly couple in Idaho and was finally apprehended there on June 16, 1974.
Eaglin was arrested in Eugene on August 6, 1974.He was indicted together with five co-conspirators on December 5, 1974 for willfully harboring or concealing an escaped federal prisoner in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 10721 and for conspiracy to commit the same acts, id.§ 371.On May 14, 1975, a jury found Eaglin guilty on both counts.2This appeal ensued.
States) Attorney General"
At the outset, Eaglin protests that, even assuming arguendo that he did in fact render assistance to Bowles, he was not properly subject to federal indictment and conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1072 for doing so.He concedes that the Government proved at trial that Bowles had failed to return from a four-hour social pass granted by the Oregon State Penitentiary where Bowles was confined, pursuant to a contract with the Federal Government, to serve concurrent state and federal sentences.But he argues that Bowles' failure to return from the pass was not an "escape" from "custody"; that, even if it was an escape from custody, it was not from a federal institution or from the custody of the United States Attorney General; and that, even if the Oregon State Penitentiary was at one time properly designated by the Attorney General as a place of confinement for Bowles, it ceased to be so when it violated its contractual agreement with the Federal Government by issuing Bowles a social pass.We are not convinced.
First, 18 U.S.C. § 4082(d) provides that a
willful failure of a prisoner to remain within the extended limits of his confinement, or to return within the time prescribed to an institution or facility designated by the Attorney General, shall be deemed an escape from the custody of the Attorney General punishable as provided in chapter 35 of this title.
(Emphasis added).SeeUnited States v. Phipps, 543 F.2d 576(5th Cir.1976);United States v. Leonard, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 212, 498 F.2d 754(1974);United States v. Hollen, 393 F.2d 479(4th Cir.1968);United States v. Frankenberry, 387 F.2d 337, 338(2d Cir.1967);McCullough v. United States, 369 F.2d 548, 549-50(8th Cir.1966).The custody of the Attorney General continues despite the unsupervised nature of the temporary release from confinement granted under a social pass, and a prisoner who violates the terms of such a release is subject to being punished for escaping from custody.CompareTucker v. United States, 251 F.2d 794, 797-99(9th Cir.1958);Giles v. United States, 157 F.2d 588, 589-90(9th Cir.1946), cert. denied, 331 U.S. 813, 67 S.Ct. 1197, 91 L.Ed. 1832(1947);United States v. Vaughan, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 316, 446 F.2d 1317(1971);United States v. Rudinsky, 439 F.2d 1074, 1076-77(6th Cir.1971);Read v. United States, 361 F.2d 830(10th Cir.1966).There is no reason to think that "escape" and "custody" would be defined differently by Congress in the context of punishing those who aid the escapee.SeeUnited States v. Viger, 530 F.2d 846(9th Cir.1976);United States v. Hobson, 519 F.2d 765(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 931, 96 S.Ct. 283, 46 L.Ed.2d 261(1975);United States v. Howard, 545 F.2d 1044(6th Cir.1976).Eaglin's first contention is thus clearly without merit.
Second, while the Oregon State Penitentiary is not a "Federal penal or correctional institution," it was designated by the Attorney General as the place of confinement in which Bowles was to serve his concurrent federal sentence.Section 4082(b) provides that such an institution may be "maintained by the Federal Government or otherwise," and we have repeatedly held that an escape from a state institution is an escape from the custody of the Attorney General if the prisoner has been confined there under the authority of the Attorney General.See, e. g., Viger, supra at 847;Hobson, supra at 770-71;Tucker, supra at 797, 799-800.See alsoHoward, supra.3
Finally, Eaglin argues that, since the social pass given to Bowles was not authorized under the confinement contract between the state and federal authorities, the custody of the Attorney General terminated, and Bowles either became a free man or reverted to the custody of the state alone, when he was released.This contention is patently frivolous.SeeTucker, supra at 798-99( ).Cf.McCullough, supra at 550( ).
Bowles escaped from the custody of the Attorney General within the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 1072.
In order to convict under 18 U.S.C. § 1072, the Government must prove that Eaglin "willfully" harbored or concealed an escaped federal prisoner.This element has been read to require that the defendant had knowledge that the person whom he aided was an escapee.United States v. Deaton, 468 F.2d 541, 543(5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 934, 93 S.Ct. 1386, 35 L.Ed.2d 597(1973).SeeUnited States v. Hobson, 519 F.2d 765, 769-70(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 931, 96 S.Ct. 283, 46 L.Ed.2d 261(1975).4Similarly, "when knowledge of a fact is required to convict for a substantive offense, knowledge is also required to convict for conspiracy to commit the substantive offense."United States v. Bekowies, 432 F.2d 8, 14(9th Cir.1970)(applying§ 1071).SeeUnited States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 686, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541(1975);Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. 672, 677-78, 79 S.Ct. 1314, 3 L.Ed.2d 1503(1959);Jefferson v. United States, 340 F.2d 193, 197(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 928, 85 S.Ct. 1567, 14 L.Ed.2d 686(1965).
Eaglin here contends both that the jury instructions given by the trial court on the element of knowledge were so misleading as to constitute reversible error and that, in any event, the evidence offered by the Government to show his knowledge of Bowles' status was insufficient.
Eaglin challenges the propriety of three instructions which, he claims, "watered down" the Government's burden of persuasion on the element of knowledge.5No objection, however, was raised to them at trial.SeeFed.R.Crim.P. 30.And, when the jury instructions are viewed as a whole, United States v. Silla, 555 F.2d 703, 705-06(9th Cir.1977);United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 958, 968(9th Cir.1977);United States v. Lemon, 550 F.2d 467, 470(9th Cir.1977), we cannot say that the trial court committed "plain error,"Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b);United States v. Esquer-Gamez, 550 F.2d 1231, 1235(9th Cir.1977);...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Hearst
...v. Kutas, 542 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1073, 97 S.Ct. 810, 50 L.Ed.2d 790 (1977); United States v. Eaglin, 571 F.2d 1069, 1086 (9th Cir. 1977). And although such claims have arisen most frequently in connection with dual representation of co-defendants, the same......
-
People v. Ross
...107 Cal.Rptr. 300, 508 P.2d 300; People v. Coleman (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1159, 1164, 80 Cal.Rptr. 920, 459 P.2d 248; United States v. Eaglin (9th Cir. 1977) 571 F.2d 1069, 1078-1081, cert. den. 435 U.S. 906, 98 S.Ct. 1453, 55 L.Ed.2d Nor does section 1202 require a preliminary showing of unavail......
-
U.S. v. Little
...independently establishing a single conspiracy. See United States v. Perez, 658 F.2d 654, 658-59 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. Eaglin, 571 F.2d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 906, 98 S.Ct. 1453, 55 L.Ed.2d 497 (1978). Once the conspiracy was established, only slight ev......
-
People v. Greenberger
...challenged testimony, even if in violation of the Constitution, was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt." (United States v. Eaglin (9th Cir.1977) 571 F.2d 1069, 1082, fn. 15.) In reference to this same language, the Ninth Circuit has stated: "No holding of any case brought to our atten......