WILLIAMS

v.

DEEGAN, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398 (10th Cir. 1977)
  …, given here, that the proof is sufficient if it establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense occurred on a date reasonably near the date alleged in the indictment. See Tafoya v. United States, 386 F. 2d 537, 539 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1034, 88 S.Ct. 1433, 20 L.Ed.2d 294. However, we are satisfied that no prejudice by variance from the dates alleged is shown in this case and the general requirement of being within the limitation period is met on these three counts. Hence as to these co…
• United States v. Morris, 700 F.2d 427 (1st Cir. 1983)
  …prove the exact date of an offense, but only that it was committed reasonably close to the date in the indictment. E.g., United States v. Williams, 657 F. 2d 199 (8th Cir. 1981); Tafoya v. United States, 386 F. 2d 537 (10th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1034, 88 S.Ct. 1433, 20 L.Ed.2d 294 (1968). See Mathes, Jury Instructions for Federal Criminal Cases, 27 F.R.D. 39, 88 (I960).6 We do not take that instruction, however, as an indication that the reasonableness of a variance is normally a question of f…
• United States v. Poole, 929 F.2d 1476 (10th Cir. 1991)
  …. Phillips, 869 F. 2d 1361, 1369 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1069, 109 S.Ct. 2074, 104 L.Ed.2d 638 (1989); United States v. Smith, 806 F. 2d 971, 974 (10th Cir.1986); Tafoya v. United States, 386 F. 2d 537, 539 (10th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1034, 88 S.Ct. 1433, 20 L.Ed.2d 294 (1968). We find no support for the claim that the instruction could have misled the jury. The trial court clearly instructed the jury, at the time the testimony was offered and at the conclusion of the evidence, that P…