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. Clarence Willie Rouse, Defendant-appellant.no. 73-3815 Summary Calendar.**rule 18, 5 Cir.; Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431f.2d 409, Part I
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 494 F.2d 45
May 13, 1974
John W. Rogers, Eric Welch, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellant.
John W. Stokes, Jr., U.S. Atty., Gale McKenzie, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WISDOM, GOLDBERG and GEE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On March 29, 1973, a lone man robbed the Citizens Trust Bank in Atlanta, Georgia, of $49,925.99. Approximately $29,200 of this amount was in one hundred dollar bills. The day after the robbery Clarence Willie Rouse, the defendant-appellant, bought a new Cadillac by paying $11,100 in one hundred dollar bills, bound in stacks and carried in a brown paper bag. Rouse was subsequently arrested, tried, and convicted of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a). His only contention on appeal is that it was harmful error to admit testimony concerning his purchase of the Cadillac.
The contested evidence was relevant and probative. 'Where there is other evidence of the guilt of the accused and the crime is of such a nature that the acquisition of money may be regarded as a natural or ordinary result of its perpetration, evidence is admissible of the sudden acquisition of money by the defendant . . . at or subsequent to the time the offense was committed, although the source of the money is not definitely traced or identified by the prosecution.' United States v. Manning, 5 Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 1105, 1110, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 837, 92 S.Ct. 125, 30 L.Ed.2d 69. See also United States v. Iacovetti, 5 Cir. 1972, 466 F.2d 1147, 1153, cert. denied, 410 U.S. 908, 93 S.Ct. 963, 35 L.Ed.2d 270. Three bank employees identified Rouse in court as the robber.
Affirmed.