UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the jury instructions given were proper and did not constitute plain error.
Williams was convicted of theft and appealed, claiming four specific jury instructions were erroneous. The jury was instructed on inferring participat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Williams appeals from his conviction for theft from Home Savings and Loan Association in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b).
He claims that the jury was incorrectly instructed in four particulars:
First, he complains of an instruction telling the jury that it could infer Williams’ participation in the theft from his unexplained possession of recently stolen property. We have frequently approved the challenged instruction (e.g., Kowalewski v. United States (9th Cir. 1969) 418 F. 2d 118; Corey v. United States (9th Cir. 1962) 305 F. 2d 232, cert. denied (1963) 371 U.S. 956, 83 S.Ct. 511, 9 L.Ed.2d 503), and we decline to reexamine the point.
Second, he claims there was error in giving a “joint purpose” instruction. No exception was taken to the instruction, and we cannot say that the giving of it was plain error under the circumstances of his case. (White v. United States (9th Cir. 1968) 394 F. 2d 49.)
Third, he urges that the failure of the court, on its own motion, to instruct the jury to treat the statements of the appellant with caution requires reversal. There is no plain error in failing to give such a cautionary instruction where, as here, there was ample evidence, independent of the challenged admissions, linking Williams to the crime. (Stapleton v. United States (9th Cir. 1958) 17 Alaska 713, 260 F. 2d 415.)
Fourth, he contends that the court improperly instructed the jury that it could find Williams, who had been charged with robbery, guilty of theft, a lesser included offense. The instruction was proper under the teaching of Sansone v. United States (1965) 380 U.S. 343, 350, 85 S.Ct. 1004, 13 L.Ed.2d 882. See also Little v. United States (9th Cir. 1969) 417 F. 2d 912.
We have examined Williams’ remaining contentions, and we find them without sufficient merit to warrant discussion
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1965)
- Corey v. United States, 305 F.2d 232 (9th Cir. 1962)
- White v. United States, 394 F.2d 49 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Obie Wilson Stapleton v. United States, 260 F.2d 415 (9th Cir. 1958)
- Little v. United States, 417 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Zimmerman v. Bd. of Educ. of Newark, 371 U.S. 956 (U.S. 1963)
- Corey v. United States, 371 U.S. 956 (U.S. 1963)
- Kowalewski v. United States, 418 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1969)