Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05047/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05047-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Michael Malone
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL8F I L L D 

TENTH CIRCUIT Unitad sr:tn~!i~ Appeals 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

GEORGE MICHAEL MALONE, 

a/k/a MIKE MALONE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 2 6 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-5047 

(D.C. No. 91-CR-106-B) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

Before TACHA and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS, District 

Judge.** 

Mr. Malone appeals his conviction and the district court's 

order denying his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and For New 

Trial. Malone was convicted of armed bank robbery in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 2113 and of knowingly using a firearm in the 

commission of a violent crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

924(c) (1). On appeal, he contends that: (1) the district court 

erred by refusing to suppress evidence obtained in a warrantless 

search; (2) the district court failed to adequately answer a jury 

question; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United 

States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 92-5047 Document: 010110159255 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 1 
conviction. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 

affirm. 

First, Malone argues that the district court erred by denying 

his motion to suppress evidence of $10,000 discovered during a 

warrantless search. The police obtained consent to search a car 

from Malone's mother-in-law, Mrs. Miller. The car was registered 

to her and although she had agreed to trade cars with Malone, she 

had not yet signed over title of the car to Malone. During the 

search, the police found an air filter box in the car and obtained 

Mrs. Miller's consent to search the box where they found the 

$10,000. The district court concluded that Malone had failed to 

establish that he owned either the car or the box, or that he had 

an expectation of privacy in the box under the circumstances. We 

find that the district court's conclusions were not clearly 

erroneous, see United States v. Gay. 774 F.2d 368, 375 (10th Cir. 

1985), and affirm for substantially the reasons given by the 

district court . 

Second, Malone contends that a jury question sent out during 

deliberations was ambiguous and the district court judge should 

have asked the jury to clarify its question and provided 

supplemental instruction based on that clarification. The jury 

asked: "Can we convict the defendant on the full Count One 

without the knowledge the weapon was a true firearm?" The judge 

conferred with counsel for both sides about whether to seek 

clarification from the jury because it was unclear whose knowledge 

they were asking about. The judge and counsel agreed not to seek 

clarification and gave the court gave the following response: 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5047 Document: 010110159255 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 2 
"Based on the instructions and the evidence in the case, to find 

the defendant guilty of Count One ... you've got to determine, 

beyond a reasonable doubt, that a firearm was involved." Because 

the judge's response was not objected to below, we review for 

plain error. United States v. McDonald, 933 F.2d 1519, 1524 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S . Ct. 270 (1992). We find no error. 

The judge properly conferred with counsel and simply referred the 

jury back to the evidence and initial instructions. There is no 

allegation that the initial instructions regarding elements of the 

offenses and t he definition of a firearm were inadequate . 

Finally, Malone contends that the evidence was insufficient 

to prove that the object used during the robbery was a firearm. 

To review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal 

conviction, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact 

could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 

"If substantial evidence supports the verdict, it cannot be set 

aside." United States v . Leach, 749 F . 2d 592, 600 (10th Cir. 

1984). A firearm was never recovered, but three eyewitne sse s 

testified that the robber had an automatic handgun and, although 

one thought it might have been fake, another testified that it 

looked real and not plastic. We find sufficient evidence to 

support the conviction. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-5047 Document: 010110159255 Date Filed: 01/26/1993 Page: 3