UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CLOTILDA CALDERON ROJAS, 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 evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the appellant's admission was properly admitted into evidence.
Appellant was convicted of misapplication of bank funds after a bench trial. Appellant argued the evidence was insufficient and that a damaging admiss…
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 Voluntariness Of Admissions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was tried and convicted in the district court, sitting without a jury, for misapplication of bank funds (18 U.S.C. § 656).
Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient, in that it “did not exclude every hypothesis but guilt.” As this court held in Sablan v. Peo. of Guam, 434 F. 2d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 1970), “[T]he proper test is not whether the evidence excludes every hypothesis except that of guilt, but rather, ‘whether the [trier of fact] could reasonably arrive at [its] conclusion’.” See United States v. Nelson, 419 F. 2d 1237, 1243 (9th Cir. 1969). Although appellant’s testimony conflicted with that of prosecution witnesses, there was substantial evidence to support a finding of guilt. It was for the trial judge, as finder of fact, to assess the weight and credibility of the witnesses’ testimony. Rule 23, F.R.Crim.P.; Fernandez-Delgado v. United States, 368 F. 2d 34 (9th Cir. 1966).
Nor did the trial court err in admitting into evidence testimony concerning a damaging admission made by appellant. The admission was made to a bank official, not a law enforcement officer, and the trial court specifically found, after hearing the parties, that the statement was voluntary.
Lastly, appellant argues that her admission was not corroborated. She is mistaken.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Whitten, 706 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1983)
-
United States v. Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1979)
-
United States v. Heck, 499 F.2d 778 (9th Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Sablan v. People OF the Territory OF Guam, 434 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1970)
- Fernandez-Delgado v. United States, 368 F.2d 34 (9th Cir. 1966)