BENNETT SIDNEY COLLINS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE; GEORGE D. STALCUP, APPELLANT, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

6th Cir. | 1960-12-14
Nos. 14196, 14197
284 F.2d 517 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1960)

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.


Holding

The court held that sustaining an objection to cross-examination regarding promised immunity was not reversible error, and that overt acts committed before withdrawal from a conspiracy justify conviction.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellants were convicted of conspiracy to commit bank robbery based largely on the testimony of a co-conspirator. They appealed, arguing the trial co…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PEE CUEIAM.

These appeals from judgments of conviction and sentence entered on the verdict of a jury have been heard and duly considered upon the record and upon the briefs and oral arguments of attorneys for appellants and for the United States.

The indictments herein charged conspiracy to commit a bank robbery. The convictions were based largely upon the testimony of a co-conspirator, who entered a plea of guilty.

Appellants assert that error was committed by the United States District Judge in sustaining objection to cross-examination of the self-confessed co-conspirator as to immunity promised him. On the record, we find that the witness categorically denied that he had received any such promise. We think no reversible error was committed by the trial judge in his ruling.

In respect of appellant George D. Stalcup, we find that, if his actions be considered a withdrawal from the conspiracy, he had at least committed such overt acts as would justify his conviction for conspiracy. The fact that a defendant, who has committed an overt act in connection with a planned bank robbery, did not participate in the ultimate robbery of the bank would not free him from the conspiracy charge. Poliafico v. United States, 6 Cir., 237 F. 2d 97. In order to convict for conspiracy, it is not necessary to prove that the conspiracy was successful. Blum v. United States, 6 Cir., 46 F. 2d 850. No reversible error being found in the record and there being substantial evidence to support the convictions, the judgments of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw