Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

United States v. Tate

575 F.2d 1152

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1978-05-23
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from jury convictions for armed bank robbery and aiding and abetting armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a)(d) and 2 (1976). The proofs at trial showed that both defendants were arrested in an automobile rented by William Tate, in which automobile was found a shopping bag with some of the loot from the bank, including bait bills. The arrest had been made as a result of an eyewitness to the robbery who identified Sylvester Tate as the bank robber and also took down the license number of the rented car. These, plus other proofs, were more than sufficient to sustain the jury verdict of guilty as to both appellants, and we find no reversible error in the trial proceedings or the judge’s charge.

Citator

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

Cited by
3 opinions
UNITED STATES v. TATE,575 F.2d 1152(6th Cir. 1978)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SYLVESTER TATE,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. WILLIAM TATE, A/K/A WILLIAM
RAYMOND KING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Nos. 77-5301, 77-5302.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued April 12, 1978.
Decided and Filed May 23, 1978.
Timothy J. Potts, Summers, Potts Burke, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellant in No. 77-5301.

Donald N. Krosin, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant in No. 77-5302.

William D. Beyer, U.S. Atty., Solomon Oliver, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Before WEICK, EDWARDS and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] This is an appeal from jury convictions for armed bank robbery and aiding and abetting armed bank robbery, in violation of18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)(d) and2(1976).

[2] The proofs at trial showed that both defendants were arrested in an automobile rented by William Tate, in which automobile was found a shopping bag with some of the loot from the bank, including bait bills. The arrest had been made as a result of an eyewitness to the robbery who identified Sylvester Tate as the bank robber and also took down the license number of the rented car. These, plus other proofs, were more than sufficient to sustain the jury verdict of guilty as to both appellants, and we find no reversible error in the trial proceedings or the judge's charge.

[3] The judgments of conviction are affirmed.