Mitchell Thompson v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Mitchell Thompson v. United States

368 F.2d 318

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 21, 1966

Docket21041

StatusPublished

This text of 368 F.2d 318 (Mitchell Thompson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mitchell Thompson v. United States, 368 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a conviction of the crime of robbery of a federally insured bank. 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). We find no error. It was not improper for the Government, which presented several witnesses who identified the appellant as the robber, to produce evidence that the appellant, shortly before the robbery, gave his landlady a check for a month’s rent, which cheek was rejected by the bank on which it was drawn because of insufficient funds, and that after the robbery the appellant paid two months’ rent in cash. See Hass v. United States, 344 F.2d 56, 63 (CA 8); Gill v. United States, 285 F.2d 711, 713 (CA 5). A vague reference by a Government witness to the appellant’s former “troubles” was of no significance, particularly since the appellant’s counsel in his opening statement had advised the jury of the appellant’s prior criminal record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a conviction of the crime of robbery of a federally insured bank. 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). We find no error. It was not improper for the Government, which presented several witnesses who identified the appellant as the robber, to produce evidence that the appellant, shortly before the robbery, gave his landlady a check for a month’s rent, which cheek was rejected by the bank on which it was drawn because of insufficient funds, and that after the robbery the appellant paid two months’ rent in cash. See Hass v. United States, 344 F.2d 56, 63 (CA 8); Gill v. United States, 285 F.2d 711, 713 (CA 5). A vague reference by a Government witness to the appellant’s former “troubles” was of no significance, particularly since the appellant’s counsel in his opening statement had advised the jury of the appellant’s prior criminal record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 F.2d 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-thompson-v-united-states-ca9-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack