Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06029/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06029-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Ray Hunter
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COUR'l' OF APPEALS 

TB1ft'II CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

DEC 211990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6029 

JAMES RAY HUNTER, 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. CR-89-186-W) 

(W. Dist. of Okla.) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BRORBY, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Submitted on the briefs: James Ray Hunter (Hunter) appeals 

his jury convictions of one count of conspiring to remove motor 

vehicle identification numbers (VINs) in violation of 18 u.s.c. SS 

371, and one count of removing the VIN off the dash of a 1987 

Chevrolet truck in violation of 18 u.s.c. S 511. He was sentenced 

to three years concurrent imprisonment on each count. 

Hunter and his three co-defendants, Tommie Virgil Hawkins, 

Leslie Jay Biggs, and Larry Gene Hawkins, were charged in an 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 90-6029 Document: 010110097298 Date Filed: 12/21/1990 Page: 1 
eighteen count indictment with operating an illegal "chop shop" or 

"salvage switch" operation. Such an operation generally involves 

acquiring automobiles and automotive parts, changing the VINs or 

parts ~umbers, and thereafter selling the automobile or part with 

new VINs or parts numbers. A "switched vehicle" is a vehicle with 

a different VIN plate than that originally assigned to the 

vehicle. 

Eight sets of events were cited in the indictment in support 

of the conspiracy charge. Only one set of events described any 

overt acts committed by Hunter to effect the object of the 

conspiracy. That set of events was stated as follows: 

(1) On or about February 

VIRGIL HAWKINS purchased a 

$1,000 cash. 

or March, 1987, TOMMIE 

1982 GMC pickup truck for 

(2) On or about January 8, 1987, JAMES RAY HUNTER 

and Charles H. Gordon stole a 1987 Chevrolet pickup 

truck from McMillin Chevrolet in Shawnee, Oklahoma. 

(3) On or about January, 1987, JAMES RAY HUNTER 

removed the dash VIN plate from the stolen 1987 

Chevrolet pickup truck. 

(4) On or about January, 1987, JAMES RAY HUNTER 

sold the stolen 1987 Chevrolet pickup truck to LESLIE 

JAY BIGGS and TOMMIE VIRGIL HAWKINS for $750.00 cash. 

(5) On or about March, 1987, TOMMIE VIRGIL HAWKINS 

sold the stolen and altered 1987 Chevrolet pickup truck 

for $4,000 to an innocent purchaser. 

(R., Vol. I, Indictment, p. 3.) 

Prior to trial, Hunter filed a motion for severance, which 

was denied. Hunter also filed a motion to assign the codefendants separate tables at trial, which was also denied. 

Thereafter, Hunter and his three co-defendants were tried jointly. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6029 Document: 010110097298 Date Filed: 12/21/1990 Page: 2 
.. At trial, the Government contended that Hunter and his codefendants conspired to "switch" the VIN plate of a 1982 GMC 

salvage truck with the VIN plate of the allegedly stolen 1987 

Chevrolet truck. Charles Gordon, the Government's main witness 

against Hunter, testified that: he was well acquainted with all 

the co-defendants except Larry Hawkins; on January 7 or 8, 1987, 

he and Hunter stole a 1987 Chevrolet pickup truck in Shawnee, 

Oklahoma; Hunter picked the lock of the truck and Gordon "broke 

the ignition" (R., Vol. II, p. 65); Hunter and Gordon drove the 

truck to Hunter's brother's house after breaking through a cedar 

fence; the next day, Hunter pulled the VIN plate off the dash of 

the truck; later, Gordon overheard Hunter calling Leslie Biggs by 

telephone and discussing the truck; two weeks after the truck had 

been stolen, Tommie Hawkins, Biggs, Hunter and Gordon gathered at 

Hunter's brother's house; Hawkins handed Biggs $750 cash and Biggs 

handed the money to Hunter, who handed the money to Gordon and 

told him to count it; Gordon kept $300; Gordon saw the truck again 

at Howard's Service Center in Harrah, Oklahoma; Gordon recognized 

the truck from a mud line that was on it; both Tommie Hawkins and 

Hunter were present; Hunter asked Gordon if he recognized the 

truck and Gordon said he did; in the spring of 1987, Gordon told 

law enforcement officials about his involvement with stealing this 

truck as well as others; Gordon then went "driving around" with 

the officials to see if he could find any of the allegedly stolen 

trucks (R., Vol. II, p. 63); Gordon spotted a truck he believed to 

be the one he and Hunter had stolen in Shawnee; Gordon recognized 

the truck from the mud line; and Gordon told the officials that 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6029 Document: 010110097298 Date Filed: 12/21/1990 Page: 3 
• the truck he and Hunter had stolen had a bent rear frame piece 

because Gordon had hooked the truck to a tractor to pull it out of 

mud. Gordon also testified that he had not been charged with 

anything in relation to these events, that he did not expect to be 

charged with anything, and that he had seven prior felony 

convictions. 

The Government also presented evidence against Hunter to 

show, inter alia, that: vehicles by law have VIN plates; in 

addition to installing a VIN plate, manufacturers mark various 

parts of the vehicle such as the engine, transmission and frame 

with numbers that correlate to the vehicle's VIN plate; neither 

Hunter nor his co-defendants were licensed by the State of 

Oklahoma to dismantle or salvage vehicles; only such licensed 

persons could remove VINs lawfully, except in rare circumstances 

not applicable here; a car dealership in Shawnee reported a 1987 

Chevrolet truck stolen on January 7 or 8, 1987; a 1982 GMC salvage 

truck "limped in" to Hawkins Garage in Harrah, Oklahoma, in 1986 

or 1987, after having been in two accidents, and was sold to the 

garage for $1,000 (R., Vol. II, p. 43); the garage was owned by 

Larry Hawkins; John Erbin, a distant relative of Tommie Hawkins, 

owned the truck that Gordon had pointed out to law enforcement 

officials; Erbin bought the truck from Hawkins in January or March 

of 1987 for about $4,500; Erbin believed the truck to be the 1982 

GMC truck, rebuilt; the VIN plate on the truck was that of the 

1982 GMC salvage truck and the truck itself had GMC type decals on 

it; however, the wear on the brake peddles, floor mats, and 

interior of the truck did not appear to be those of a 1982 GMC 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6029 Document: 010110097298 Date Filed: 12/21/1990 Page: 4 
pickup; rather, the truck and its interior appeared to be new; the 

truck had a bent rear frame just as the stolen 1987 Chevrolet 

truck allegedly had; the truck appeared to have altered 

identification numbers, in that the numbers stamped on the truck 

in various locations appeared to have been obliterated and 

restamped; an inklift done by officials on the obliterated numbers 

showed the background of some characters; and those characters 

were consistent with the stolen 1987 Chevrolet truck. 

After all evidence was presented, the district court granted 

a motion for judgment of acquittal for Larry Hawkins. The jury 

returned verdicts against Hunter and his remaining co-defendants, 

finding them all guilty as charged. On appeal, Hunter argues 

that: (1) the evidence presented against him at trial was 

insufficient to sustain his conviction of conspiring to remove 

VINs from vehicles, and (2) the district court erred in its 

failure to grant his motion for severance. We affirm. 

I. 

Hunter argues that evidence at trial was insufficient to 

sustain his conviction of conspiring to remove VINs from vehicles. 

In support of his argument, Hunter contends that the only evidence 

presented at trial to implicate him with regard to the removal of 

VIN plates was the vague and highly suspect testimony of Gordon, 

Hunter's unindicted co-conspirator, and that, as a matter of law, 

a co-conspirator's uncorroborated testimony is insufficient to 

sustain a conspiracy conviction. In the alternative, Hunter 

contends that: Gordon did not testify that there was some prior 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6029 Document: 010110097298 Date Filed: 12/21/1990 Page: 5 
agreement between Hunter and his co-defendants to remove and 

obliterate VINs, or that Hunter was aware of any existing 

conspiracy; Gordon did testify that it took about two weeks for 

Hunter to find a buyer for the stolen truck, which would act to 

negate the Government's theory that Hunter was part of a 

conspiracy or knew of a conspiracy; thus, evidence was 

insufficient to sustain Hunter's conviction of conspiracy. 

Evidence is considered sufficient to support a crimina_ 

conviction if, viewing all the evidence, both direct and 

circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the government, a 

reasonable trier of fact could find the essential elements of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Culpepper, 834 

F.2d 879, 881 (10th Cir. 1987) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 

U.S. 307, 318-19, reh'g denied, 444 U.S. 890 (1979)). 

We have held the elements of a general conspiracy to be as 

follows: 

The essence of the crime of conspiracy is an 

agreement to violate the law. . The evidence in a 

criminal conspiracy trial ... need only establish the 

existence of a conspiracy and that a defendant knowingly 

contributed his efforts in furtherance thereof. 

The nature of the offense of conspiracy with its 

attendant aspects of secrecy, often requires that 

elements of the crime be established by circumstantial 

evidence. Thus, the common plan or purpose may be 

inferred from a combination of circumstances. 

United States v. Andrews, 585 F.2d 961, 964 (10th Cir. 1978) 

(citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Contrary to Hunter's 

assertion, a conviction can be had on the uncorroborated testimony 

of a co-conspirator, if believed by the jury. United States v. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-6029 Document: 010110097298 Date Filed: 12/21/1990 Page: 6 
I Dufriend, 691 F.2d 948, 953 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 

U.S. 1173 (1983). 

The existence of a plan between these co-defendants does not 

need to be stated or written, but can be inferred from the 

circumstances: the fact that the sale of the 1987 truck did not 

take place until two weeks after the truck's theft does not 

support a holding that the evidence, as a whole, was insufficient 

to sustain Hunter's conspiracy conviction. Although Gordon's 

testimony against Hunter, in itself, would support Hunter's 

conspiracy conviction, his testimony was also supported by other, 

circumstantial, evidence. Thus we hold that the evidence, 

especially after viewing it in a light most favorable to the 

Government, was sufficient to sustain Hunter's conviction. 

II. 

Hunter argues that the district court erred in its failure to 

grant his motion for severance. He claims that he and his codefendants were not all engaged in the same conspiracy and thus 

could not be tried together. He also claims, inter alia, that the 

defense table was arranged so that "an air of camaraderie between 

the four accused men and their lawyers [was created]," and that 

the very presence of his co-defendants conveyed to the jury a 

"psychological message and/or impression of 'guilt by association' 

.•. which was wholly impossible to overcome or adequately 

dilute." (Appellant's Brief, pp. 2, 5.) 

In determining the merit of a motion for severance, the 

district court must balance the prejudice to a particular 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-6029 Document: 010110097298 Date Filed: 12/21/1990 Page: 7 
defendant caused by the joinder against the considerations of 

economy and expedition in judicial administration. United States 

v. Pack, 773 F.2d 261, 266 (10th Cir. 1985). The decision to 

grant a severance motion is within the sound discretion of the 

district court and its decision will not ordinarily be reversed in 

the absence of a strong showing of prejudice. United States v. 

Valentine, 706 F.2d 282, 289-90 (10th Cir. 1983). The burden of 

the defendant to show an abuse of discretion in this context is a 

difficult one. Id. at 290. A defendant must show actual 

prejudice to him resulting from a denial of his request for 

severance. United States v. Hack, 782 F.2d 862, 870 (10th Cir.), 

cert. denied sub nom., Owens v. United States, 476 U.S. 1184 

(1986). 

In conspiracy cases, the general rule is that persons 

indicted together should be tried together. Pack, 773 F.2d at 

266. However, several conspiracies may not be joined in a single 

trial "when the only nexus among them lies in the fact that one 

man participated in all." Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 

750, 773 (1946). 

In this case, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to 

find that Hunter, Biggs, and Tonunie Hawkins participated in the 

same conspiracy. The prejudice that Hunter claims to have existed 

because the defendants sat together is minimal at best and is not 

sufficient to require reversal. Indeed, Hunter cites no caselaw 

in support of his proposition that such proximity is prejudicial 

per .§.g, and we find none. Moreover, Hunter has failed to 

establish any actual prejudice existing from his physical 

-8-

Appellate Case: 90-6029 Document: 010110097298 Date Filed: 12/21/1990 Page: 8 
• proximity to his co-defendants during trial. Thus we hold that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Hunter's motion for severance. 

We AFFIRM. 

-9-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6029 Document: 010110097298 Date Filed: 12/21/1990 Page: 9