Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. John Wayne Bingham, AKA Robert Bingham

628 F.2d 548

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1980-09-22
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that bank robbery by intimidation can be committed without “express threats of bodily harm, threatening body motions, or the physical possibility of concealed weapon[s]”
  • affirming bank robbery conviction where evidence demonstrated that defendant told teller that "she had 'three seconds' to give him the money in the top drawer, and then repeated this demand"
  • "express threats of bodily harm, threatening body motions, or the physical possibility of concealed weapon" are not required
  • “[E]xpress threats of bodily harm, threatening body motions, or the physical possibility of concealed weapon[s] . . . have never been held to be requirements for a § 2113(a) conviction.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. John Wayne Bingham, AKA Robert Bingham. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
23 opinions
UNITED STATES v. BINGHAM,628 F.2d 548(9th Cir. 1980)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JOHN WAYNE BINGHAM, AKA
ROBERT BINGHAM, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 80-1091.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 1980.
Decided September 22, 1980.
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]
Georgina Torres Rizk, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Frederik A. Jacobsen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before SNEED, ANDERSON and TANG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Bingham appeals his conviction for unarmed bank robbery under18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), contending that there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could find "intimidation." We affirm the judgment of conviction.

[2] Taking by intimidation is the willful taking in such a way as would place an ordinary person in fear of bodily harm.Page 549United States v. Alsop,479 F.2d 65,66(9th Cir. 1973). Here, the bank teller's subjective fears were reasonable. It is undisputed that Bingham told the teller that she had "three seconds" to give him the money in the top drawer, and then repeated this demand while she was taking the money out of the drawer. From this, the jury properly concluded that a reasonable person could interpret these statements as implicit threats of harm if the person did not promptly meet Bingham's unequivocal demand. The fact that in other cases there was more overt evidence of intimidation — such as express threats of bodily harm, threatening body motions, or the physical possibility of concealed weapon — is unavailing to Bingham, because those factors have never been held to be requirements for a § 2113(a) conviction.

[3] AFFIRMED.