From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. McIntosh

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jul 3, 1972
463 F.2d 250 (3d Cir. 1972)

Summary

holding that the uncontradicted testimony of the assistant vice-president and manager of a bank branch was sufficient to establish that the bank was insured by the FDIC

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Hart

Opinion

No. 72-1323.

Submitted June 22, 1972 under Third Circuit Rule 12(6).

Decided July 3, 1972.

William C. Bradley, Jr., Aerenson, Balick Balick, Wilmington, Del., for appellant.

Norman Levine, Asst. U.S. Atty., Wilmington, Del., for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Before ALDISERT, JAMES ROSEN, and HUNTER, Circuit Judges.


OPINION OF THE COURT


Found guilty by a jury of robbing the Delaware Trust Company, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), appellant raises as the sole question on this appeal that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence that the bank was insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a crucial element of the crime charged. At trial, the Assistant Vice-President and Manager of the Wilmington Office of the Delaware Trust Company testified that he was custodian of the charters of the bank, and that on the critical date, March 14, 1969, the bank was a member of the F.D.I.C. His testimony was not contradicted.

We hold that the uncontradicted testimony was sufficient to sustain the government's burden. United States v. Phillips, 427 F.2d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 867, 91 S.Ct. 108, 27 L.Ed.2d 106 (1970); United States v. Safley, 408 F.2d 603, 605 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 983, 89 S.Ct. 2147, 23 L.Ed.2d 772 (1969).

The judgment of conviction will be affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. McIntosh

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jul 3, 1972
463 F.2d 250 (3d Cir. 1972)

holding that the uncontradicted testimony of the assistant vice-president and manager of a bank branch was sufficient to establish that the bank was insured by the FDIC

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Hart

holding that the uncontradicted testimony of the assistant vice-president and manager of a bank branch was sufficient to establish that the bank was insured by the FDIC

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Booker

determining testimonial evidence was sufficient to show federally insured status under the federal bank robbery statute

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Barel

In McIntosh, we upheld a conviction under the federal bank robbery statute because the assistant vice president/manager of the bank, who was custodian of the bank's charters, testified that the bank was federally insured on the date of the robbery.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Barel
Case details for

United States v. McIntosh

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LEONARD McINTOSH, APPELLANT

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Jul 3, 1972

Citations

463 F.2d 250 (3d Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Humbert

We find that the evidence was sufficient to show that the institution at issue in that trial — The Bank — was…

U.S. v. Hart

Testimonial evidence of a bank employee who is personally aware of the bank's federal insurance status is…