United States v. Willie C. Tanner, Anthony Cleveland and Arnold L. Swain

571 F.2d 334, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11634
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 17, 1978
Docket77-5682
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 571 F.2d 334 (United States v. Willie C. Tanner, Anthony Cleveland and Arnold L. Swain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Willie C. Tanner, Anthony Cleveland and Arnold L. Swain, 571 F.2d 334, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11634 (5th Cir. 1978).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Swain, Cleveland, and Tanner, inmates of the Federal Correctional Institu *335 tion (“FCI”), Tallahassee, Florida, were convicted of holding hostage, and aiding and abetting each other in holding hostage, three prison workers, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 7, 13, and Fla.Stat.Ann. 787.01(l)(a)(l); conveying weapons from place to place within a federal correctional institution, 18 U.S.C. § 1792; and unlawfully attempting, and aiding and abetting an attempt, to escape from a federal prison, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 751(a). On appeal, the principal issue is whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the hostages were taken within the exclusive and the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Finding that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm.

At trial the government introduced into evidence a 1937 deed of conveyance and 1938 deed of cession of land in Leon County, from Florida to the United States, for purposes of building a federal prison. A large number of witnesses testified that FCI was a federal prison, was staffed by federal employees, and was located in Tallahassee. One witness situated it two miles from the' courthouse, in Leon County. It was undisputed that all three appellants at the time of the offenses, were inmates therein, and that the FBI was called as a matter of course to investigate the incident.

While it would have been useful for the lower court to have taken judicial notice 1 of FCI’s location within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States, 18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 13, and within its exclusive jurisdiction, as alleged in the indictment, we are convinced that the above facts sufficed to prove jurisdiction. See Hall v. United States, 10 Cir. 1968, 404 F.2d 1367, 1368; Markham v. United States, 4 Cir. 1954, 215 F.2d 56, 58.

Swain also contends that the evidence did not prove his conveyance of a knife from place to place, as required for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1792. While the evidence is sufficient to conclude that appellant Swain conveyed the knife across the prison yard in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1792, we note that we would also uphold his conviction even if the evidence showed that Swain conveyed the knife while located in a single room. As the Fourth Circuit observed in United States v. LaBare, 542 F.2d 926, 927 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1027, 97 S.Ct. 651, 50 L.Ed.2d 630 (1976), there is no requirement that the conveyance be from one place to another place separated from the first by a partition or other barrier. See also United States v. Swindler, 476 F.2d 167, 169 (10 Cir. 1973).

We have reviewed the other issues raised and find them to be without merit.

AFFIRMED.

1

. F.R.Ev. 201(b).

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

Related

United States v. Robert Castillo, Jr.
615 F.2d 878 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
Cleveland v. United States
439 U.S. 845 (Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
571 F.2d 334, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-willie-c-tanner-anthony-cleveland-and-arnold-l-swain-ca5-1978.