United States v. Epps

Decision Date22 February 1971
Docket Number14766.,No. 14765,14765
Citation438 F.2d 1192
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roger Larson EPPS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lovic Moultrie INGRAM, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Arthur G. Murphy, Sr., Baltimore, Md., on brief for appellant, Roger Larson Epps.

Benjamin L. Brown, Baltimore, Md., on brief for appellant, Lovic Moultrie Ingram.

George Beall, U. S. Atty., and Charles G. Bernstein, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief for appellee.

Before WINTER, CRAVEN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Roger Larson Epps and Lovic Moultrie Ingram were charged as codefendants in a three-count indictment with violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (bank robbery by force and violence, or by intimidation) (count one), with violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(b) (unarmed bank robbery) (count two), and with violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(d) (armed bank robbery) (count three). At the close of the government's case, motions for acquittal with regard to count three were granted. A jury convicted Epps and Ingram of counts one and two. Epps was sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen years on count one, and ten years on count two, the sentences to run concurrently. Ingram was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years on count one, and ten years on count two, the sentences to run concurrently. In this appeal, the government has filed a motion to affirm the judgments summarily.

Both Epps and Ingram challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to convict them of count one. We think the note, handed to the teller by Epps, which stated, "Put all your money in this bag and nobody will get hurt," sufficient under the circumstances to permit the jury to find that the bank robbery had been committed by intimidation within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a).

Both also challenge the admission into evidence during the government's rebuttal and hence, after the judgments of acquittal on the charge of armed bank robbery, of two boxes of cartridges. Reliance is placed upon United States v. Laker, 427 F.2d 189 (6 Cir. 1970), which held that admission of a gun in a prosecution for unarmed bank robbery is error.

Even if the scope of the decision in Laker is sufficiently broad to include the admission of ammunition, without the admission of a gun, in a prosecution for unarmed bank robbery, it is inapplicable here. The admission of the ammunition was proper to impeach the credibility of Epps. After Epps' motion for a judgment of acquittal on the armed bank robbery count of the indictment was granted, Epps testified in his own behalf. In his direct testimony he said that he did not have a gun while he was in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • United States v. Natale
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 28 Noviembre 1975
    ...extortionate threats, but the strong and intrepid as well. See United States v. Alsop, 479 F.2d 65, 67 (9th Cir.1973); United States v. Epps, 438 F.2d 1192 (4th Cir.1971). See also United States v. Brown, 412 F.2d 381, 384 (8th Cir.1969). Accordingly, we reject the claim that actual fear is......
  • Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kerpelman
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 5 Septiembre 1980
    ...government allowed to produce officer to testify he had seized heroin from defendant's home at unrelated time); see also U. S. v. Epps, 438 F.2d 1192 (4th Cir. 1971); Krider v. Hempftling, 137 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.1940) (where one party offers evidence in regard to irrelevant matter, other pa......
  • Coles v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 10 Abril 2003
    ...Please give me small, unmarked bills, touch off no alarms, and alert no one for at least ten minutes. Thank you"); United States v. Epps, 438 F.2d 1192, 1193 (4th Cir.1971)("We think the note, handed to the teller by Epps, which stated, `Put all your money in this bag and nobody will get hu......
  • United States v. Jacquillon
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 1 Noviembre 1972
    ...shoot you." This tactic is frequently employed by armed robbers and is clearly intended to induce fear. See, e. g., United States v. Epps, 4 Cir. 1971, 438 F.2d 1192. The teller's testimony at trial shows that she was afraid. Certainly, it cannot be said that the jury exceeded the scope of ......
  • 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