United States v. Hampton, No. 71-1130.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1130. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Henry HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John C. Moran, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant-appellant.
Givens L. Adams, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl. (William R. Burkett, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before JONES*, HILL and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, James Henry Hampton, was convicted before a jury of a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314 under an indictment which charged that he caused to be transported in interstate commerce from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to St. Louis, Missouri, a falsely made and counterfeit security, to-wit: a counterfeit cashier's check of Southside National Bank, St. Louis, Missouri, in the amount of $500, numbered S0062, payable to Wesley Gene Smith and signed Geo. B. Keller. Hampton appeals from his conviction and sentence.
Early in his opening statement the prosecuting attorney began to outline at length and in detail the testimony which he expected to elicit from his first witness. He stated that it was not known whether this witness could identify the person who cashed the check. Counsel for Hampton then objected on the ground that if the witness couldn't "identify him," the reference in the opening statement was improper. The court overruled the objection, admonished Government counsel not to go through all of the testimony of all of his witnesses but to relate generally what the evidence would be.
The prosecuting attorney, without following the court's direction or suggestion, whichever it was, but in the absence of objection, proceeded to outline in detail the testimony he expected to produce from four other witnesses, named by him, who would testify as to specified acts and incidents constituting the elements of the offense charged in the indictment by the cashing of the check at the Shepherd Mall State Bank in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The prosecutor then outlined what he expected to prove by another witness who would, the prosecutor said, testify as to the presenting of another and similar counterfeit cashier's check at a Sears Roebuck store in Oklahoma City.
The prosecutor started to outline the testimony of another witness whom he intended to call to give evidence with respect to the cashing of a cashier's check at the Sears store by the defendant. The attorney for Hampton interposed an objection on the ground that evidence was not admissible to prove a separate offense not set forth in the indictment. The objection was overruled. The counterfeit cashier's check cashed at Sears Roebuck and the evidence relating to its negotiation were received in evidence over the objection of Hampton's counsel.
Among the instructions to the jury was the following:
In this connection, you are instructed that this evidence of the cashier\'s check cashed at Sears Roebuck is admitted only for the purpose of showing guilty knowledge, motive, plan or system of operation, and does not in any wise prove the guilt or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dunn
...(“The scope and manner of opening statement is largely within the discretion of the trial court.”); United States v. Hampton, 458 F.2d 29, 30 (10th Cir.1972) (“The trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, control the scope and extent of the opening statement.”). The purpose of an......
-
Hampton v. U.S.
...payable to Wesley Gene Smith. 1 His direct appeal, which did not raise the contentions now urged, was unsuccessful. Hampton v. United States, 458 F.2d 29 (10th Cir. 1972). In order that the petition before us may be properly appraised it is necessary to set it in context. The proofs adduced......
-
United States v. Pickens, 71-1557.
...part of the defendant." The evidence was admissible and appellant's contentions to the contrary are without merit. United States v. Hampton, 458 F.2d 29 (10th Cir. 1972); United States v. Grider, 454 F.2d 713 (10th Cir. 1972); United States v. Carter, 433 F.2d 874 (10th Cir. Pickens contend......
-
U.S. v. Pennick
...charged in the indictment comes well within such cases as United States v. Parker, 469 F.2d 884 (10th Cir. 1973); United States v. Hampton, 458 F.2d 29 (10th Cir. 1972), and United States v. Burkhart, 458 F.2d 201 (10th Cir. The other testimony relating to so-called other transactions came ......