United States v. Owens, 71-1656.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1656.,71-1656. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlton Raymond OWENS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Givens L. Adams, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl. (William R. Burkett, U. S. Atty., Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Burton L. Cawthorne, Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellant.
Before HILL, BARRETT and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.
Carlton Raymond Owens was convicted for fraudulently causing to be transported in interstate commerce two falsely made and forged American Express Company money orders in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2, 2314. Count I charged that Owens and one James Monroe York a/k/a Joyce Buckner cashed one such stolen money order at the B & W Redbud Food Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Count II charged that Owens and one Stephen Harrison Humphrey a/k/a Julia Newis cashed one such stolen money order at the Latham Redbud Store in the Oklahoma City area.
York and Humphrey pled guilty to like charges prior to Owens' trial. They were committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a period of 18 months. York and Humphrey testified for the Government at Owens' trial. On appeal, Owens claims error by reason of the failure of the trial judge to, sua sponte, give a cautionary instruction on accomplice testimony.
On November 29, 1970 twenty blank American Express money orders were stolen from Pak-A-Sak Foods in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The two money orders referred to in the indictments were identified by several witnesses as being among the twenty money orders stolen from the Pak-A-Sak store. One of the money orders had been endorsed by a Joyce Buckner; the other was endorsed by a Julia Newis.
York and Humphrey testified that they were acquaintances of Owens and that on November 29, 1970 they were visiting Owens and his wife; that Owens displayed some 20 or 30 blank money orders to them at that time; that the three of them then went to another house where Owens left the money orders to have specific dollar amounts printed on them; and that the money orders were picked up and on December 1, 1970, York, Humphrey, Owens, Owens' wife and another individual cashed several of the money orders in the Oklahoma City area. York and Humphrey said that they delivered most of the proceeds realized from the cashed money orders to Owens. York testified that he was a female impersonator, a homosexual, and that he had been convicted in a federal court of cashing a forged and altered security. He said he was then on parole. Humphrey testified that he was a female impersonator, a homosexual, and that his only felony conviction was for the crimes with which he, York and Owens were charged. Humphrey and York testified that they were dressed as females when they cashed the money orders. Employees of the stores where the stolen money orders were cashed identified Humphrey and York in court as the individuals who presented the money orders.
While one can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices, Johns v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...States v. Willis, 473 F.2d 450, 454 (6th Cir. 1973); United States v. House, 471 F.2d 886, 888 (1st Cir. 1973); United States v. Owens, 460 F.2d 268, 269 (10th Cir. 1972); United States v. Adams, 454 F.2d 1357, 1360 (7th Cir. 1972); United States v. Miller, 451 F.2d 1306, 1307 (4th Cir. 197......
-
State v. Moore
...accomplice testimony was "uncorroborated and was not directly supported by unequivocal circumstantial evidence"); United States v. Owens, 460 F.2d 268, 269 (10th Cir.1972) (failure to give instruction was plain error when accomplice testimony was only evidence directly implicating defendant......
-
U.S. v. Lee, 72-1932
...4, 56 F.2d 301, cert. denied sub nom., Logan v. United States, 285 U.S. 555, 52 S.Ct. 459, 76 L.Ed. 944 (1932) with United States v. Owens, 460 F.2d 268 (10th Cir. 1972); Tillery v. United States, 411 F.2d 644 (5th Cir. 1969); McMillen v. United States, 386 F.2d 29 (1st Cir. 1967), cert. de......
-
U.S. v. Nunez
...testimony is to be considered by jurors. E. g., United States v. Hill, 627 F.2d 1052, 1053-55 (10th Cir.); United States v. Owens, 460 F.2d 268, 269 (10th Cir.); Todd v. United States, 345 F.2d 299, 300-01 (10th Cir.). Even if their testimony is corroborated in critical respects, we neverth......