Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04090/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04090-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Catherine Gibson Pierce
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.. 

f 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

MAY 2 0 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 92-4090 

(D. Utah) 

CATHERINE GIBSON PIERCE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. 91-NCR-00SSA) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9(c). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Catherine Gibson Pierce appeals her convictions on 

five counts of wrongfully obtaining student assistance in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 and five counts of 

false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 2, arguing 

that certain evidence was erroneously admitted against her at 

* 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: 92-4090 Document: 010110115152 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 1 
trial. We review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Robinson, 978 F.2d 1554, 1561-62 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 61 

U.S.L.W. 3714 (U.S. Apr. 19, 1993) (Nos. 92-7324 & 92-7450). 

I 

From October 1985 to January 1989, defendant was employed as 

a financial aid clerk at Davis Area Vocational Center (DAVC), 

which offers technical training to adults and secondary school 

students. In her position, defendant was responsible for verifying the eligibility of students seeking federal tuition assistance. Between March 15, 1988, and October 14, 1988, defendant 

authorized the disbursement by the business office of five Pell 

Grant checks made payable to DAVC students, even though all of 

these students had previously terminated their enrollment at DAVC. 

Each check was endorsed and cashed at Barnes Bank, where both DAVC 

and defendant maintained accounts, and two of the checks had student identification numbers written on the back. A subsequent 

audit of the school's records revealed that the five checks were 

erroneously issued, and defendant was indicted for misappropriating the checks and for making false statements. 

At trial, the government introduced as evidence the disbursement sheets that accompanied the checks and served as invoices. 

Each sheet bore the various students' initials, indicating receipt 

of the checks. However, four of the five individuals testified 

that they never received the checks, nor had they authorized anyone else to do so on their behalf. The fifth individual did not 

testify. Bank records indicate that defendant made a cash deposit 

to her account within seven days of each check being cashed, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-4090 Document: 010110115152 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 2 
• 

although defendant offered innocent explanations for four of the 

five deposits. A government handwriting expert testified that 

defendant endorsed the five checks; defendant's expert countered 

that a comparison between defendant's handwriting and the endorsements was inconclusive. The jury convicted defendant on five of 

six counts of wrongfully obtaining student assistance and five 

counts of false statements. 

II 

First, defendant objects to the admission at trial of computer printouts reflecting the attendance of the five persons for 

whom the checks were issued on the ground that the records contained information on student attendance both before and after the 

events in question, and therefore exceeded the scope of the 

indictment. We are not persuaded. 

Defendant testified that she determined the students' eligibility for federal funds from the computer records, and that 

numerous people had access to the files and could have changed the 

information. Further, she testified that the school had experienced computer problems in the past. The government introduced 

the student records to demonstrate that no discrepancies in the 

records were present during the relevant period in 1988 or at any 

other time. Defendant contends t hat because the printouts were 

obtained in 1989 or later, they are not probative of the status of 

the computer records in 1988. However, she offered no evidence 

that they had been altered in the interim. The records were 

directly relevant to the issues in the case, and their admission 

was not erroneous. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-4090 Document: 010110115152 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 3 
Second, defendant objects to the admission of prosecution 

rebuttal testimony concerning defendant's access to the equipment 

necessary for making student identification cards. Testimony had 

been presented that such cards were required for both picking up 

the checks at the business office and for cashing them at Barnes 

Bank. Further, two checks had student identification numbers 

written on the back. Defendant's evidence created the inference 

that the need for identification cards would make misappropriation 

more difficult, and the government was entitled to rebut that 

inference by showing that defendant had access to the necessary 

equipment for making such cards. The government's rebuttal evidence on this issue was properly admitted. 

Third, defendant alleges that a cross-examination question 

asked of her by the government required her to give evidence of 

uncharged crimes. An examination of the particular question, however, belies the apparent gravity of that contention. During her 

testimony, defendant stated that on occasion she had cashed personal checks at DAVC. On cross-examination, she acknowledged that 

she cashed such checks at least three or four times per week 

throughout her employment. The prosecution then asked if she had 

bounced any of these checks, and she responded that she had. 

Defendant now asserts that this last answer should have been 

stricken by the court sua sponte under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), even 

though defense counsel failed to object. Because of this failure, 

we will reverse only for plain error affecting substantial rights. 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Thody, 978 F.2d 625, 631 

(10th Cir. 1992). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-4090 Document: 010110115152 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 4 
.. 

The government argues that the question was not intended to 

imply a "bad act" on the part of defendant, but was merely 

designed to give a complete picture of defendant's check-cashing 

activities at DAVC. We agree. Defendant's argument is also 

undercut by the fact that this testimony was elicited in relation 

to the one count on which defendant was acquitted, so any resulting prejudice was obviously minimal. Admission of that question 

and defendant's subsequent answer was within the court's discretion, and was not plain error. 

Because we reject defendant's contentions of error, her argument based on cumulative error must likewise fail. 

AFFIRMED. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-4090 Document: 010110115152 Date Filed: 05/20/1993 Page: 5