Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Angel Del Valle-rojas, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 469 F.2d 79
Nov. 13, 1972
Kevin J. McInerney, of McInerney, Milchen & Frank, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Stephen G. Nelson, Douglas G. Hendricks, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and TALBOT SMITH,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Valle-Rojas was convicted of having attempted to escape from custody, a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 751(a). While being transported from one jail facility to another, the appellant slipped from the handcuffs with which he was bound to two other prisoners. Subsequently, he was found hiding in a portion of the bus which had been used for the transportation. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
The principal argument advanced by Valle-Rojas on this appeal is that the prosecution committed prejudicial error in introducing evidence of the accused's conviction of prior felonies, including a previous conviction, in February 1971, of the offense of escape. He relies upon Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 348 F.2d 763 (1965). While many of the district judges of our Circuit have apparently followed the Luck rule, see, e.g., United States v. O'Day, 467 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1972); Burg v. United States, 406 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1969) (concurring opinion), the rule has not been fully adopted by our court, Burg, supra. In any event, however, a fair interpretation of the record reveals that the District Court did indeed exercise its discretion in deciding whether to admit the challenged evidence.
The judgment is
Affirmed.