United States v. Mankins

• Decision Date: 14 June 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73-2120-73-2122.,73-2120-73-2122.
• Citation: 497 F.2d 1265
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arthur Tilmer MANKINS, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jerry Thomas DISHER, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John Richard NEWSOME, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

497 F.2d 1265 (1974)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Arthur Tilmer MANKINS, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jerry Thomas DISHER, Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John Richard NEWSOME, Appellant.

Nos. 73-2120-73-2122.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 25, 1974.

Decided June 14, 1974.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief for the United States.

R. Bradford Leggett, Winston-Salem, N. C. Court-appointed, on brief for appellant Arthur Tilmer Mankins.

Eddie C. Mitchell, Winston-Salem, N. C. Court-appointed, on brief for appellant Jerry Thomas Disher.

Harrell Powell, Jr., Winston-Salem, N. C. Court-appointed, on brief for appellant John Richard Newsome.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WINTER, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

On March 14, 1973, a branch bank of the Winston-Salem Savings and Loan Association was robbed by a lone gunman. Subsequently, Arthur Tilmer Mankins, Jerry Thomas Disher, and John Richard Newsome were indicted and convicted for the offense. Mankins was identified as the gunman, and Disher and Newsome were prosecuted as principals for having aided and abetted Mankins. All three men now appeal their convictions. Since the three were tried jointly and raise related issues, we have determined to decide their appeals in a single opinion. For reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm the convictions.

Mankins raises three grounds for relief. It is first claimed that a photographic identification by witnesses was conducted in such a manner that it tainted their subsequent in-court identification. This argument is devoid of merit. The individual who robbed the bank wore no mask or disguise. The two tellers present at the bank had an opportunity to view him for some three to five minutes. Each teller separately identified Mankins from police photographs the afternoon of the robbery, and each identified him in court. We have carefully examined the record and discern nothing whatsoever which would suggest that the photographic display was impermissibly suggestive, or that the in-court identifications did not have an independent basis. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968).

Mankins' second contention is that testimony concerning his status as an escaped prisoner prejudiced his defense. While several references were made to the fact that Mankins had escaped from a state penal facility the week before the robbery, we conclude that he is not thereby entitled to relief. The evidence of a prior criminal conviction was not employed to prove the offense charged, but was introduced because relevant to show the relationship between Mankins and his codefendants. It was undisputed that Disher and Newsome were instrumental in facilitating Mankins' escape, and that the three were in close contact for much of the week between the escape and the robbery. In any case, there was ample direct evidence of Mankins' guilt so that any error in allowing unnecessary references to his status as an escaped prisoner was harmless.

Mankins' final argument is that the court erred by instructing the jury that a finding of guilty as to him was a condition precedent to deliberations concerning the guilt of Disher and Newsome. We disagree. The evidence concerning Disher and Newsome was that they aided and abetted Mankins. There was no evidence whatsoever that Disher and Newsome may have aided and abetted someone other than Mankins. It was therefore proper to permit jury deliberations as to Disher and Newsome only after an initial finding of Mankins'...