Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03283/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03283-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Henry Holden Frazier
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

·' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUL 2 5 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-3283 

HENRY HOLDEN FRAZIER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. 89-20032-01) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, and ANDERSON, and TACHA, Circuit 

Judges. 

This appeal is from defendant Frazier's conviction on one 

charge of embezzlement in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 1711. 

Defendant appeals on the grounds that the district court erred in 

admitting a comparative analysis of defendant's sales when 

compared to those of other window clerks. Defendant further 

appeals on the grounds that his crime was not a felony but rather 

a series of misdemeanors. We affirm. 

Defendant Henry Holden Frazier was a relief window clerk at 

the Overland Park, Kansas, post office. On October 28, 1988, 

United States Postal Service inspectors audited Frazier's cash and 

stamp stock. These audits served a supplementary function to 

* 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: 89-3283 Document: 010110038739 Date Filed: 07/25/1990 Page: 1 
daily checks conducted by supervisors. In Frazier's audit, 

inspectors found a shortage of $1,458.35. Frazier was arrested, 

indicted, and convicted of one charge of embezzlement, in 

violation of 18 u.s.c. section 1711. 

At defendant's trial, the district court admitted a 

comparative analysis made by postal inspector Ted Harper. Harper 

compared Frazier's daily sales to those of the regular clerks for 

whom he substituted and found that Frazier's totals were $1,569 

lower than those of the regular clerks. Defendant alleges that 

the admission of this comparative analysis was in error. We 

disagree. We review the admission of the comparative analysis for 

an abuse of discretion. See United States Y...!.. Alexander, 849 F.2d 

1293, 1301 (10th Cir. 1988). Harper's testimony was simply a 

summary of the sales records of individuals. The sales figures of 

window clerks for whom defendant substituted were relevant in 

evaluating the evidence with respect to the shortages attributable 

to the periods during which Frazier worked. Harper did not 

purport to be an expert but simply testified to a summary of 

evidence that would have been otherwise admissible in its 

entirety. Such a summary is authorized by Federal Rule of 

Evidence 1006. We cannot say that the district court abused its 

discretion in admitting the comparative analysis. 

Defendant further argues that the district court erred in 

treating the offense charged as one felony rather than a series of 

misdemeanors. Defendant argues that if he committed the crimes 

with which he was charged they were a series of individual crimes 

and should not have been aggregated to constitute one felony 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3283 Document: 010110038739 Date Filed: 07/25/1990 Page: 2 
J 

conviction. We disagree. The evidence in this case supports the 

finding of the district court that the crime involved was a 

continuing series of transactions all of which were a part of a 

total embezzlement scheme. The indictment charged one count of 

embezzlement. We cannot say that the district court erred in 

treating the crime as a felony rather than a series of 

misdemeanors. AFFIRMED. 

3 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3283 Document: 010110038739 Date Filed: 07/25/1990 Page: 3