UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
STEVE CARL EIDE, 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 testimony regarding a planned robbery was admissible to establish motive and that a co-defendant's extrajudicial statement was admissible without violating Bruton.
Steve Carl Eide was convicted for possession and transfer of an unregistered firearm. He appealed, arguing that certain testimony and a co-defendant's…
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 Bruton Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Steve Carl Eide appeals from his non-jury conviction for possession and transfer of a firearm not registered to him, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) and (e).
We find no merit in the contentions raised by appellant and affirm.
Testimony regarding a robbery planned by appellant was admissible at trial for the purpose of establishing a motive for possession of the firearm, a machine gun. See Loux v. United States, 389 F. 2d 911, 918-919 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 867, 89 S.Ct. 151, 21 L.Ed.2d 135 (1968).
An extrajudicial statement made by appellant’s co-defendant at the time of his arrest was likewise admissible. The co-defendant — who was acquitted — took the stand at trial, confirmed the statement in substance, and was interrogated by appellant’s counsel. There was no violation of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).
The court’s determination that appellant was not entrapped into committing the offenses charged was supported by substantial evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Loux v. United States, 389 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Newton v. Virginia, 393 U.S. 867 (U.S. 1968)
- Bradwell v. United States, 393 U.S. 867 (U.S. 1968)