United States v. Stith

• Decision Date: 27 April 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72-1621.,72-1621.
• Citation: 479 F.2d 315
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Frances Felicia STITH, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

479 F.2d 315 (1973)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Frances Felicia STITH, Appellant.

No. 72-1621.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 10, 1973.

Decided April 27, 1973.

Ray H. Willlams, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

J. Patrick Glynn, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before GIBSON, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the conviction of Frances Felicia Stith under a one count indictment charging her with embezzlement of funds from a federally insured bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

Miss Stith was a teller at the Citizens Bank of University City in St. Louis County, Missouri. On June 16, 1972, the bank discovered a shortage in her drawer of $260.00. She was relieved of her job at the time but offered no explanation of the shortage. On June 21, 1972, she was interviewed by an agent of the FBI after being advised of her rights and after having signed the usual waiver of rights form. During this interview, conducted at the bank, Miss Stith confessed to taking the $260.00. The confession was later used at the trial. Miss Stith testified in her own behalf and denied taking the money, although she admitted signing the confession and the waiver of rights form.

On this appeal counsel for Miss Stith has raised the following issues:

1. Defendant was denied a preliminary hearing before a magistrate and thus was denied the right to discover the case against her at an early time prior to trial.

2. The indictment upon which Miss Stith was tried was based "solely upon illegal and incompetent evidence."

3. The indictment was "materially" changed by the Government without resubmitting it to the grand jury.

4. The confession was involuntary because of failure to give the proper Miranda warnings.

5. Failure of the trial court to grant the request of the defendant for transcripts of testimony of two witnesses who testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress was error and prejudicial to the defendant.

6. That the trial court erred in limiting defense counsel in the voir dire examination of the jury panel.

7. That the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the FDIC certificate issued to the bank several years prior to the embezzlement, together with checks to FDIC dated January 26, 1972, and July 26, 1972, to prove that the bank was a member of FDIC on June 15, 1972.

We have carefully examined each of the alleged errors and find them to be completely without merit and we will limit our comments to points 1, 3, and 4.

The preliminary hearing was scheduled for Miss Stith for July 3, 1972. At that time the hearing was continued until July 12, 1972, over the objection of counsel for defendant. On July 10, 1972, Miss Stith was indicted by a federal grand jury and the scheduled preliminary hearing was never held.

This Court rejected the argument advanced by appellant relating to the preliminary hearing, in Spinelli v. United States, 382 F.2d 871, 887 (8th Cir. 1967), rev'd on other grounds, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed. 637 (1969), when the Court stated as follows:

Though the preliminary hearing provided for in Rule 5(c) may be a practical tool for discovery by the accused, the only legal justification for its existence is to protect innocent accuseds

...