COLEMAN, Circuit Judge.
Rex Windom appeals his conviction of publishing and uttering as true eight government checks bearing forged endorsements knowing the endorsements to have been forged.1 We affirm.
The direct evidence against Windom was supplied by three witnesses — Raymond Starns, James Maxwell, and George Boyd.
Starns’ Testimony
At the time of the trial, Raymond Starns was serving a sentence in federal penitentiary arising out of some of the same criminal activities with which defendant was charged. Starns testified that in February of 1972 he was attempting to sell his bankrupt business, the Mechanical Maintenance and Manufacturing Company. On February 16, 1972, a business associate introduced him to the defendant. Windom represented [992]*992himself to be George Boyd, President of the prosperous Missouri corporation, Tri State Motor Transit. He told Starns that he was planning to invest in a Louisiana business and might be interested in buying the Mechanical Maintenance and Manufacturing Company.
During the discussion of the proposed sale, defendant told Starns that he wanted to open an account in a Louisiana bank. Starns recommended the First National Bank of Denham Springs, where he did his banking business, and agreed to take Windom to that bank.
When they got to the bank, Starns and Windom talked with James Maxwell, the bank president. Defendant again represented himself to be George Boyd, and explained his desire to open an account. To open the account, he produced eight U. S. Government checks, made out to Tri State Motor Transit, the Missouri corporation he claimed to represent. Since defendant said he did not have the company's stamp with him, Maxwell had Tri State’s endorsement typed on the checks. The representation that the endorsements were true and authorized is the criminal act for which Windom stands convicted.
Starns testified that he and defendant had two other meetings for the purpose of discussing the proposed Mechanical Maintenance sale. One occasion was a brief meeting at a Baton Rouge coffee shop. The other took place at the offices of Starns’ attorney. The law office meeting was the occasion on which Windom first drew on the account he had fraudulently established in the Denham Springs Bank. He drew a $35,000 check, gave it to Starns, who gave it to one of the lawyers, who, in turn, gave it to a secretary for cashing. The secretary returned with the cash; defendant put it in his briefcase.
The meeting ended with no finalization of the sale of the business. Starns drove defendant to the airport. On the way, for reasons left unclear by Starns’ testimony, defendant gave Starns $5000 in cash, plus some checks which Starns later discovered to have been stolen.
Contact between Starns and defendant terminated with their arrests.
Maxwell’s Testimony
James Maxwell, President of the Den-ham Springs First National Bank, corroborated Starns’ testimony to the effect that defendant had come to the bank, had represented himself to be George Boyd, and had deposited the government checks made out to Tri State Motor Transit. He testified that he had cashed, a $35,000 check signed “George Boyd”, delivered by the secretary. He further testified that Starns had given him a $110,000 check signed “George Boyd”. The $110,000 check was payable to another bank and was drawn for a transfer of funds. He honored this fraudulent check, but the money was recovered.
George Boyd’s Testimony
The real George Boyd testified that he is president of Tri State Motor Transit, that he does all his banking in Missouri, that he has never been in Denham Springs, Louisiana, and that he does not know how the defendant obtained the government checks made payable to his company.
The Appellate Arguments
Defendant makes no claim that the above recited evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. Instead, he urges various alleged evidentiary, procedural, and instructural errors:
I. Did the Judge err in admitting evidence supplementing facts stated in a written stipulation?
The government took a handwriting specimen from defendant. It had an F.B.I. handwriting expert compare this handwriting with the signatures on checks and other documents signed by the person calling himself “George Boyd”. The government hoped to show that the individual who had signed the checks as “George Boyd” was the defendant.
The handwriting expert could reach no definite conclusion as to. whether or not [993]*993the signatures on the checks were made by defendant. Consequently, the government and the defendant entered the following stipulation:
“[0]n the basis of the analysis and comparison, it was not determined that the handwriting on the exhibits was the handwriting of Rex Windom.”
Some time prior to the trial, the government advised Windom’s counsel that it planned to call its handwriting expert to testify. The government attorney specifically invited defense counsel to question the expert so that he would be prepared to cross examine. The invitation was declined.
At the trial, over objection, the handwriting expert testified in detail about the procedures used in signature analysis. He further testified that although he had formed no conclusion, the defendant possibly “could have” signed the checks.
Defendant says the admission of the expert’s testimony was reversible error since “a written stipulation may not be commented on, nor testimony taken, once the parties have agreed to the stipulation”.
How this factor was allowed to creep into the case seems incomprehensible. Windom was not on trial for uttering handwritten endorsements. The charge was that he had falsely represented himself to be the president of the company to whom the checks were issued and had falsely represented that he had authority to cause typewritten endorsements to be affixed to the checks. That he did cause the endorsements to be typed on the checks was proven by the eye witness testimony of both Starns and the bank president. If it can be said that the forgery of the real Boyd’s signature on checks drawn on the account would tend to show that Boyd was guilty of the original forgery, the answer is that the forgery had already been proven by direct, rather than secondary evidence, as had the delivery of the $30,000 check to the attorney.
On the other hand, we are equally skeptical that the episode in any way prejudiced Windom. The testimony of the witness did not contradict the stipulation. Indeed, it confirmed it. It nailed down the proposition that the handwriting expert could not conclude that Windom did the handwriting in question. This should have been to Windom’s advantage. True, the witness was allowed to say that Windom could have done it, but that was not what the case was about. The issue was, did he utter forged typewritten endorsements? Furthermore, defense counsel had been on adequate notice that the handwriting expert would be called to testify.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COLEMAN, Circuit Judge.
Rex Windom appeals his conviction of publishing and uttering as true eight government checks bearing forged endorsements knowing the endorsements to have been forged.1 We affirm.
The direct evidence against Windom was supplied by three witnesses — Raymond Starns, James Maxwell, and George Boyd.
Starns’ Testimony
At the time of the trial, Raymond Starns was serving a sentence in federal penitentiary arising out of some of the same criminal activities with which defendant was charged. Starns testified that in February of 1972 he was attempting to sell his bankrupt business, the Mechanical Maintenance and Manufacturing Company. On February 16, 1972, a business associate introduced him to the defendant. Windom represented [992]*992himself to be George Boyd, President of the prosperous Missouri corporation, Tri State Motor Transit. He told Starns that he was planning to invest in a Louisiana business and might be interested in buying the Mechanical Maintenance and Manufacturing Company.
During the discussion of the proposed sale, defendant told Starns that he wanted to open an account in a Louisiana bank. Starns recommended the First National Bank of Denham Springs, where he did his banking business, and agreed to take Windom to that bank.
When they got to the bank, Starns and Windom talked with James Maxwell, the bank president. Defendant again represented himself to be George Boyd, and explained his desire to open an account. To open the account, he produced eight U. S. Government checks, made out to Tri State Motor Transit, the Missouri corporation he claimed to represent. Since defendant said he did not have the company's stamp with him, Maxwell had Tri State’s endorsement typed on the checks. The representation that the endorsements were true and authorized is the criminal act for which Windom stands convicted.
Starns testified that he and defendant had two other meetings for the purpose of discussing the proposed Mechanical Maintenance sale. One occasion was a brief meeting at a Baton Rouge coffee shop. The other took place at the offices of Starns’ attorney. The law office meeting was the occasion on which Windom first drew on the account he had fraudulently established in the Denham Springs Bank. He drew a $35,000 check, gave it to Starns, who gave it to one of the lawyers, who, in turn, gave it to a secretary for cashing. The secretary returned with the cash; defendant put it in his briefcase.
The meeting ended with no finalization of the sale of the business. Starns drove defendant to the airport. On the way, for reasons left unclear by Starns’ testimony, defendant gave Starns $5000 in cash, plus some checks which Starns later discovered to have been stolen.
Contact between Starns and defendant terminated with their arrests.
Maxwell’s Testimony
James Maxwell, President of the Den-ham Springs First National Bank, corroborated Starns’ testimony to the effect that defendant had come to the bank, had represented himself to be George Boyd, and had deposited the government checks made out to Tri State Motor Transit. He testified that he had cashed, a $35,000 check signed “George Boyd”, delivered by the secretary. He further testified that Starns had given him a $110,000 check signed “George Boyd”. The $110,000 check was payable to another bank and was drawn for a transfer of funds. He honored this fraudulent check, but the money was recovered.
George Boyd’s Testimony
The real George Boyd testified that he is president of Tri State Motor Transit, that he does all his banking in Missouri, that he has never been in Denham Springs, Louisiana, and that he does not know how the defendant obtained the government checks made payable to his company.
The Appellate Arguments
Defendant makes no claim that the above recited evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. Instead, he urges various alleged evidentiary, procedural, and instructural errors:
I. Did the Judge err in admitting evidence supplementing facts stated in a written stipulation?
The government took a handwriting specimen from defendant. It had an F.B.I. handwriting expert compare this handwriting with the signatures on checks and other documents signed by the person calling himself “George Boyd”. The government hoped to show that the individual who had signed the checks as “George Boyd” was the defendant.
The handwriting expert could reach no definite conclusion as to. whether or not [993]*993the signatures on the checks were made by defendant. Consequently, the government and the defendant entered the following stipulation:
“[0]n the basis of the analysis and comparison, it was not determined that the handwriting on the exhibits was the handwriting of Rex Windom.”
Some time prior to the trial, the government advised Windom’s counsel that it planned to call its handwriting expert to testify. The government attorney specifically invited defense counsel to question the expert so that he would be prepared to cross examine. The invitation was declined.
At the trial, over objection, the handwriting expert testified in detail about the procedures used in signature analysis. He further testified that although he had formed no conclusion, the defendant possibly “could have” signed the checks.
Defendant says the admission of the expert’s testimony was reversible error since “a written stipulation may not be commented on, nor testimony taken, once the parties have agreed to the stipulation”.
How this factor was allowed to creep into the case seems incomprehensible. Windom was not on trial for uttering handwritten endorsements. The charge was that he had falsely represented himself to be the president of the company to whom the checks were issued and had falsely represented that he had authority to cause typewritten endorsements to be affixed to the checks. That he did cause the endorsements to be typed on the checks was proven by the eye witness testimony of both Starns and the bank president. If it can be said that the forgery of the real Boyd’s signature on checks drawn on the account would tend to show that Boyd was guilty of the original forgery, the answer is that the forgery had already been proven by direct, rather than secondary evidence, as had the delivery of the $30,000 check to the attorney.
On the other hand, we are equally skeptical that the episode in any way prejudiced Windom. The testimony of the witness did not contradict the stipulation. Indeed, it confirmed it. It nailed down the proposition that the handwriting expert could not conclude that Windom did the handwriting in question. This should have been to Windom’s advantage. True, the witness was allowed to say that Windom could have done it, but that was not what the case was about. The issue was, did he utter forged typewritten endorsements? Furthermore, defense counsel had been on adequate notice that the handwriting expert would be called to testify.
In view of the eye witness testimony, in view of no contradiction of the basic premise of the stipulation, in consideration of the fact that the expert witness admitted that he could not say that the writings were Windom’s, and in further consideration that defense counsel knew all along that the expert was going to be called to testify, our appraisal of this skirmish is that if error existed it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
We are similarly unimpressed by appellant’s complaints concerning the instructions of the Court which conceded, although unnecessarily, that the government would have to prove by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Windom had “obtained possession of a genuine obligation of the United States.” The indictment charged this, but this was pure surplusage. The offense was uttering a forgery, not possessing a stolen government check. The end result of all this is that the government assumed and, by the instructions of the Court, was required to carry a burden which was not properly assignable to it. Instead of being prejudiced, Rule 52, Fed.R.Crim.P., the defendant was handed a windfall. It was a sham issue in any event. Obviously, the defendant had to come into the possession of the checks, else he could not have offered them to the bank president.
The assignment about the instruction on aiding and abetting, 18 [994]*994U.S.C. § 2,2 must be consigned to a similar fate. The appellant argues that this instruction was wholly improper because there was no evidence that Windom aided another to commit the offense charged; in other words, by the government’s proof, Windom was himself the principal. Even so, Starns had testified that on one occasion prior to the time he and Windom deposited the government checks in the Denham Springs bank, he, Starns, the close associate of Windom in depositing the checks, had deposited $300,000 in stolen U. S. Treasury notes in the same bank as collateral for a loan he was arranging for some associates. This testimony could have given rise to an inference, if the jury saw fit to accept it, that if Windom was not acting on his own behalf when he deposited the checks he was aiding and abetting Starns in his various activities associated with stolen government checks and securities.
The appellant additionally complains of the failure of the District Court to give the customary accomplice in-, struction, that such testimony must be received with great caution. The problem with this is that the defense requested no such instruction, so the point is of no moment unless it amounted to plain error. The failure to give such an instruction where the testimony of the accomplice is the only direct evidence against the accused is plain error, Tillery v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 644; Williamson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 332 F.2d 123.
To the contrary, in a case where the defendant was convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of two convicted accomplices we declined, in the absence of a close evidentiary situation, to reverse for failure to give a cautionary instruction, United States v. Clark, 5 Cir., 1973, 480 F.2d 1249.
We are next met with the assertion that the trial court should not have charged the jury in the following language:
The writing of a payee’s endorsement on a United States Treasury Check by any person other than the payee, if done willfully and without authority, and with intent to defraud, constitutes a forgery within the meaning of Section 495 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
We agree with what the 8th Circuit said in Cummings v. United States, 8 Cir., 1968, 398 F.2d 377, 382: the reference to forgery was merely explanatory of the actual charge, uttering the forgery, and in giving the instruction the trial court did not submit an additional charge not contained in the indictment.
Finally, we are told that the District Judge committed reversible error when he declined to declare a mistrial after the prosecutor in the course of argument referred to the defendant as a “con artist”. We resist the temptation to present a recapitulation of the many cases dealing with this subject. In general, prosecuting attorneys are no longer permitted to indulge themselves, or their audiences, in unrestrained, abusive histrionics, giving their personal evaluations of what a low-down fellow the defendant really is. Nevertheless, the law remains that unflattering characterizations of a defendant will not provoke a reversal when such descriptions are supported by the evidence. See, e. g., Walker v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1971, 437 F.2d 1018, in which the prosecutor referred to the appellant as a “professional criminal.”
Appellant complains that since all eight checks were uttered at the same time to the same recipient he should not have been prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced on eight counts, charging each check as the basis for an [995]*995individual count. We disagree. Each check was a separate document, requiring a separate endorsement, and thus was uttered individually. Besides, the appellant received concurrent sentences. See United States v. Hale, 5 Cir., 1972, 468 F.2d 435, which deals with both aspects of this argument.
Affirmed.