UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
DONALD LEE SMITH, APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, V. JAMES LLOYD MCBRIDE, 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 trial court did not err in refusing to give a cautionary instruction on the testimony of an informer, and that the accomplice's testimony was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
Defendants Smith and McBride were convicted of entering a federally insured institution with intent to commit larceny. The government's case depended …
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
HEANEY, Circuit Judge.
Defendants Smith and McBride were jointly tried and convicted of entering a federally insured institution with intent to commit larceny. The evidence showed that they burglarized the Cass Federal Savings & Loan Association in St. Louis, Missouri. The government produced only two witnesses: Arthur Shelton, a co-participant in the burglary, ®nd Thomas M. Urban, an officer of the savings and loan. The convictions depended totally on Shelton’s testimony.
The defendants contend (1) that the court should have given a cautionary instruction on the testimony of an informer, and (2) that Shelton’s testimony was so incredible as to be insufficient to sustain the convictions. These contentions are totally devoid of merit.
The defendants state that the court should have instructed the jury on the testimony of an informant, because Shelton had been “bought off” by the prosecution, by having certain charges dismissed. This argument is frivolous. There is no proof in the record of why these matters were disposed of as they were, and no showing of a link between Shelton’s testimony and the alleged “payoff”. The trial court amply protected the defendants by giving an instruction on the testimony of an accomplice.
It is clear that a conviction may rest upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Hanger v. United States, 398 F. 2d 91 (8th Cir. 1968); Wood v. United States, 361 F. 2d 802 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 978, 87 S.Ct. 520, 17 L.Ed.2d 439 (1966); Williams v. United States, 328 F. 2d 256 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 969, 84 S.Ct. 1651, 12 L.Ed.2d 739 (1964). Attempts to impeach Shelton on cross-examination failed. Furthermore, the defendants’ allegations that Shelton had been “bought off” and his answer to those allegations were fully aired before the jury. If the jury believed Shelton, his testimony was sufficient to sustain the convictions. See, United States v. Mechanic, 454 F. 2d 849 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 929, 92 S.Ct. 1765, 32 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972); United States v. White, 451 F. 2d 351 (8th Cir. 1971).
The convictions are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Phillips, 522 F.2d 388 (8th Cir. 1975)
-
United States v. Smith, 538 F.2d 1332 (8th Cir. 1976)
-
United States v. Miles, 483 F.2d 1372 (8th Cir. 1973)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Hanger v. United States, 398 F.2d 91 (8th Cir. 1968)
- Williams v. United States, 328 F.2d 256 (8th Cir. 1964)
- Williams v. United States, 377 U.S. 969 (U.S. 1964)
- Allen v. Oklahoma, 377 U.S. 969 (U.S. 1964)
- Wood v. United States, 361 F.2d 802 (8th Cir. 1966)
- United States v. Mechanic, 454 F.2d 849 (8th Cir. 1971)
- Wood v. United States, 385 U.S. 978 (U.S. 1966)
- Hurley v. Blackwell, 385 U.S. 978 (U.S. 1966)
- United States v. Darris White, 451 F.2d 351 (8th Cir. 1971)
- Greene v. South Dakota, 406 U.S. 929 (U.S. 1972)