United States v. Samaniego
Decision Date | 04 February 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 26175.,26175. |
Citation | 437 F.2d 1244 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin E. SAMANIEGO, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Marvin Zinman, Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., Thomas E. Kotoske, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BARNES, HUFSTEDLER and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-appellant, Benjamin E. Samaniego, was charged with aiding and abetting Edwin Leo Busch, who was charged with the robbery of a National Bank while using a hand gun (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (d)). Codefendant Busch entered a plea of guilty to the lesser included offense (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)). Appellant waived a jury, and was tried and found guilty of aiding and abetting Busch in commission of the lesser included offense (18 U.S.C. § 2 and 18 U. S.C. § 2113(a)).
Appellant urges three errors on appeal — the insufficiency of the evidence to convict; the alleged bias on the part of the trial judge; and the alleged refusal of the trial judge to permit counsel for defendant to see all of the probation report.
We find none of the errors urged have merit, and we affirm.
Grant v. United States, 291 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1961); United States v. Camarillo, 431 F.2d 616 (9th Cir. 1970).
Of course, mere knowledge of the crime, or mere presence at the scene of it, is not sufficient evidence to convict a defendant of knowingly participating in a crime.
In United States v. Brown, 436 F.2d 702 (12/23/70), this Court recently said:
Were we to change the plural "individuals" to "individual", the "Credit Union" to "bank", and "Volkswagen" to "green Toyota," the facts in the Brown case would be precisely the facts in this case, and sufficient to have the issue of appellant's guilt go to the jury.1 But there are additional facts in this case which were not present in Brown, supra. Here the defendant not only waited in the alley behind the bank, in the driver's seat of the green Toyota, parked in a peculiar manner, and parked with the motor running, but he drove the robber (who ran to the automobile with a pistol in his hand, and who had told the appellant he had just robbed the bank) away from the scene at a high rate of speed and through a stop sign to appellant's home, where he allowed the robber to hide his loot under appellant's bed, and partially to burn his disguise in appellant's presence in appellant's fireplace. After the robbery he lied to officers concerning his earlier whereabouts on the day of the robbery; and about the ownership of the partially burned disguise; and told his sister to "take care" of the incriminating evidence in his bedroom. Before the robbery he aided the robber in attempting to disguise the planned "get away" or "switch" car (a red Toyota) (1) by furnishing a Certificate of Registration issued to the appellant, and license plates, issued to appellant's father, which were taken from a Ford truck, (2) by following the robber's "switch" car to where it was parked, and (3) by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Siegel v. LePore, No. 00-15981
...Supreme Court precedent indicates that a federal court should be reluctant to abstain when voting rights are at stake); Edwards, 437 F.2d at 1244 (stating the general rule that abstention is not appropriate "in cases involving such a strong national interest as the right to vote"). In light......
-
League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc. v. Detzner
... ... 4:18-CV-251-MW/CASUnited States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division.Signed July 24, 2018354 F.Supp.3d 1281Abha ... Walker, Chief United States District Judge354 F.Supp.3d 1282This Court has considered, after hearing, Defendant's motion ... ...
-
Edwards v. Sammons
... ... David T. SAMMONS et al., Defendants-Appellees ... No. 30061 ... United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit ... February 2, 1971 ... Rehearing Denied March 1, ... ...
-
Whitley v. State
...People v. Weber, 84 Cal.App.2d 126, 190 P.2d 46(5) (1948); United States v. Garguilo, 310 F.2d 249 (2d Cir.1962); United States v. Samaniego, 437 F.2d 1244 (9th Cir.1971). However, if the person had knowledge of the intended crime and shared in the criminal intent of the principal actor, he......