United States v. Michaelson
| Decision Date | 21 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 20138.,20138. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis Ray MICHAELSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Paul A. Sullivan (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Jonathan D. Rapore, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BROWNING and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR*, District Judge.
On this appeal from conviction for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2113(b), the appellant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict since seven witnesses testified to the bank robbery and appellant's participation therein.
He does object to the introduction of evidence indicating that he was in possession of large amounts of money after the date of the robbery. The basis for this objection is that there was not a sufficient showing that he was impecunious prior to the robbery. The prosecution proved that Michaelson had a very limited income prior to the robbery, and the jury was free to disbelieve Michaelson's allegation that he derived substantial income from a business in Mexico which he admitted had no name and kept no records. The foundation evidence was ample. Sidders v. United States, 381 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1967). Therefore, the admission of the challenged evidence was well within the rule in this circuit that evidence of sudden affluence is relevant to prove a crime for which pecuniary gain is the motive. Lyda v. United States, 321 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1963).
We cannot accept appellant's other contention that it was prejudicial error for the trial judge to require him to admit to previous convictions after defense counsel stipulated that the appellant had in fact been convicted. The Supreme Court and this court have consistently held that when a defendant takes the stand, he may be impeached by evidence of a prior felony conviction. McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 215, 91 S.Ct. 1454, 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971); Burg v. United States, 406 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1969). It was proper to ask the witness if he had previously been convicted of a felony. United States v. Freeman, 412 F.2d 1181 (10th Cir. 1969); Tucker v. United States, 409 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1969).
The judgment is affirmed.
* Honorable Fred M. Taylor, United States District Judge for the District of Idaho, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Walling, 72-2834.
...851, 92 S. Ct. 87, 30 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971) with United States v. Haili, 443 F.2d 1295, 1298-1299 (9th Cir., 1971); United States v. Michaelson, 453 F.2d 1248, 1249 (9th Cir., 1972); and United States v. White, 463 F.2d 18, 20 (9th Cir., 1972); rehear. denied (1972); cert. denied 409 U.S. 1024,......
-
United States v. Sidman
...shortly after the robbery, had a large sum of money in cash, is incorrect; the evidence was indeed relevant. United States v. Michaelson, 453 F.2d 1248, 1249 (9th Cir. 1972); Sidders v. United States, 381 F.2d 513, 515 (9th Cir. Lastly, appellant argues that the Court was in error for permi......
-
U.S. v. White
...source of defendant's wealth, the better rule is to leave the question of resolving such a conflict to the jury. See United States v. Michaelson, 453 F.2d 1248 (9 Cir. 1972); Sidders v. United States, 381 F.2d 513 (9 Cir. 1967). This is especially appropriate when the evidence rests in larg......
-
U.S. v. Greiser
...immediately after the extortion is relevant on the issue. United States v. Sidman, 470 F.2d 1158, 1163 (CA9 1972); United States v. Michaelson, 453 F.2d 1248, 1249 (CA9 1972). Appellant's reliance on Alberty v. United States, 162 U.S. 499, 510-511, 16 S.Ct. 864, 40 L.Ed. 1051 (1896), and Hi......