Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Curtis Ray Michaelson

453 F.2d 1248

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-01-21
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: 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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Curtis Ray Michaelson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
7 opinions
UNITED STATES v. MICHAELSON,453 F.2d 1248(9th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CURTIS RAY MICHAELSON,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 20138.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
January 21, 1972.
Paul A. Sullivan (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.Page 1249

Jonathan D. Rapore, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before BROWNING and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and TAYLORfn*, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] On this appeal from conviction for bank robbery in violation of18 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.

[2] 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).

[3] 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).

[4] The judgment is affirmed.
  1. Honorable Fred M. Taylor, United States District Judge for the District of Idaho, sitting by designation. ↩