United States v. Richard Roland Valdez

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Richard Roland Valdez

529 F.2d 996

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1976

Docket75--1788

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 529 F.2d 996 (United States v. Richard Roland Valdez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Richard Roland Valdez, 529 F.2d 996 (8th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Richard Roland Valdez appeals from a jury conviction finding him guilty of unlawful transportation of counterfeit securities with the knowledge that the securities were counterfeit in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2814 and of conspiracy to violate that statute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. He contends on appeal that the District Court erred in failing to suppress the counterfeit securities which were seized from the glove compartment of his automobile, and that it erred in refusing to give an accomplice instruction requested by him. We find no merit to the appellant’s appeal.

The police had probable cause to believe that Valdez was at least an accomplice or aider and abettor in two crimes involving theft and bad checks which had been committed a short time before his arrest, and that he was aiding and abetting his accomplices in fleeing from the area. Upon the arrest, they could search the car that he was driving. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925).

The accomplice instruction given by the court has been approved by the Tenth Circuit, United States v. Reid, 437 F.2d 94, 95 (10th Cir. 1971), and is, in our view, an appropriate one. See I. E. Devitt & C. Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 12.04 (2nd ed. 1970).

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

PER CURIAM.

Richard Roland Valdez appeals from a jury conviction finding him guilty of unlawful transportation of counterfeit securities with the knowledge that the securities were counterfeit in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2814 and of conspiracy to violate that statute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. He contends on appeal that the District Court erred in failing to suppress the counterfeit securities which were seized from the glove compartment of his automobile, and that it erred in refusing to give an accomplice instruction requested by him. We find no merit to the appellant’s appeal.

The police had probable cause to believe that Valdez was at least an accomplice or aider and abettor in two crimes involving theft and bad checks which had been committed a short time before his arrest, and that he was aiding and abetting his accomplices in fleeing from the area. Upon the arrest, they could search the car that he was driving. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925).

The accomplice instruction given by the court has been approved by the Tenth Circuit, United States v. Reid, 437 F.2d 94, 95 (10th Cir. 1971), and is, in our view, an appropriate one. See I. E. Devitt & C. Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 12.04 (2nd ed. 1970).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 F.2d 996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-roland-valdez-ca8-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack