Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01505/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01505-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Jochim
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

. .. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United St.ates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JAN 2 81988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 87-1505 

v. 

ROBERT JOCHIM, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. CR No. 87-CR-36) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before LOGAN, TACHA, MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

In the first count of a two-count indictment Robert Jochim 

was charged with taking $25,000 in currency belonging to the 

Central Bank of Broomfield, located in Broomfield, Colorado, and 

insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, from the 

person and presence of one James Musser, and that in thus taking 

the money Jochim assaulted James Musser and put his life in 

jeopardy by the use of a dangerous weapon, i.e., a firearm, all in 

violation of 18 u.s.c. §§ 2113(a) and (d). In a second count 

Jochim was charged with using and carrying a firearm in committing 

the robbery charged in count one, in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 

924(c). A jury convicted Jochim on both counts and he now appeals 

those convictions and the sentences imposed thereon. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 87-1505 Document: 010110025164 Date Filed: 01/28/1988 Page: 1 
4 

At trial Jochim elected not to testify. However, his defense 

was that it was not he, but someone else, who committed the robbery. His counsel called several alibi witnesses whose testimony, 

if believed by the jury, would place Jochim in Fairchild's Poker 

Club, located in Westminster, Colorado, at or about the time of 

the robbery. 

On appeal, Jochim urges two grounds for reversal: (1) The 

evidence is legally insufficient to establish that it was he 

(Jochim) who committed the robbery, and (2) the admission, over 

objection, 

ments made 

prejudicial 

of a plastic replica of an automatic pistol and stateby defendant concerning it 

under the circumstances. 

was erroneous and 

Our study of the trial 

transcript leads us to conclude that the evidence is sufficient to 

support the jury's determination that it was Jochim, not someone 

else, who committed the robbery, and that the admission into 

evidence of the plastic replica of an automatic pistol and 

defendant's statement was not erroneous, though it was quite 

possibly prejudicial. All evidence which tends to show guilt is, 

in one sense, "prejudicial." 

At about 2:00 a.m. on Sunday, February 1, 1987, the automatic 

teller machine (ATM) owned and operated by the Central Bank of 

Broomfield "jammed" and became inoperative. It is undisputed that 

the defendant, Jochim, was present at that particular ATM at or 

about that time, since his picture was taken by a surveillance 

camera. Jochim was shown the photo by the investigating officers, 

and he said "that's me, all right," and he freely admitted that he 

had tried to obtain some money from the machine, but found the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-1505 Document: 010110025164 Date Filed: 01/28/1988 Page: 2 
machine "jammed." The machine was serviced and placed back in 

operation around 8:00 a.m. on February 1, 1987. 

At about 11:00 p.m. that evening, this same ATM machine at 

the Central Bank in Broomfield again became inoperative, and James 

Musser, a serviceman, immediately went to the scene to correct the 

problem. At this time the surveillance camera malfunctioned, for 

some unexplained reason. Musser testified that he arrived at the 

scene about 11:30 p.m. and proceeded to remedy the situation. 

However, as Musser was about to step outside the machine, he was 

confronted by a male who shouted "hold it, don't shut the door." 

Musser looked the man in the face, and testified that he immediately noted a rather striking resemblance between the robber 

and a friend of Musser's whom he had known when he lived in Iowa. 

The robber, according to Musser, wore a ski mask which went 

"around" the face, more than it covered the face proper, to the 

end that Musser could see his assailant's visage, i.e., eyebrows, 

cheeks, nose, mouth, and the like. At trial, Musser testified 

that he "believed" that the defendant, Jochim, was the man who 

accosted him, and he related why he had this belief. 

Musser further testified that the person who accosted him had 

a gun in his hand, that he (Musser) could not tell what kind of 

gun it was, but that "[i]t looked like it was in a bag, a clear 

bag of some type, a baggie or II 

Following the orders of his assailant, Musser turned around 

and knelt on the floor. The robber then removed Musser's loaded 

and operational 357 caliber revolver and held both weapons on 

Musser, who was ordered to put currency into what looked like a 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-1505 Document: 010110025164 Date Filed: 01/28/1988 Page: 3 
Safeway shopping bag. This Musser did. The robber then fled the 

scene, and Musser called the police. 

The Broomfield Police responded immediately and one officer, 

while searching the area, found a toy replica of an automatic 

pistol in a plastic bag in the street near the ATM. 

A witness who lived in a townhouse across the street from the 

bank testified that he had observed a light-colored, early 1970s 

Chrysler-product car pull out of the townhouse parking lot without 

its headlights on at approximately 11:40 p.m., February 1, 1987. 

He identified defendant's car, a 1977 Plymouth, as looking very 

similar to the car he saw that night. 

FBI agents, accompanied by a Broomfield policeman, interviewed Jochim on February 15 and 18, 1987, who was by that time a 

prime suspect. Jochim was not arrested until February 20, 1987. 

We do not propose to set forth in detail those conversations 

between the FBI agents and Jochim. It is sufficient to state that 

Jochim denied any involvement in the robbery and stated that at 

the time of the robbery he was playing poker at Fairchild's Poker 

Club. We would also note that one agent told Jochim that a "toy 

gun laying [sic] in the street outside the ATM machine that had 

been used during the robbery" had been found and sent to a 

laboratory in Washington, D.C. for fingerprint processing, and 

that "if his [Jochim's] fingerprints were on that toy gun he was 

in a lot of trouble." Jochim's response was that he had forgotten 

to tell the agents in their prior conversations that when he was 

at this particular ATM in the early morning hours on February 1, 

1987, he had seen a toy gun lying in a trash can and had picked it 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-1505 Document: 010110025164 Date Filed: 01/28/1988 Page: 4 
up and looked at it before throwing it back into the trash can, 

and that "if his fingerprints were on the toy gun that would be 

the reason." (Parenthetically, no prints were found on the toy 

gun!) 

In examining the record, this Court is bound to view the 

evidence presented in the trial court in the light most favorable 

to the government to ascertain if there is sufficient substantial 

evidence, direct and circumstantial, together with reasonable 

inferences, from which a jury might find a defendant guilty beyond 

a reasonable doubt. United States v. Twilligear, 460 F.2d 79 

(10th Cir. 1972). This Court has found evidence sufficient to 

support a conviction even though statements of witnesses as to the 

identity of the robber differed between the initial trial and the 

retrial. United States v. Gipson, 693 F.2d 109 (10th Cir. 1982), 

cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1216 (1983). We have also upheld 

conviction based on in-court identification by one witness 

although other witnesses were equivocal in their identification. 

United States v. Ingram, 600 F.2d 260 (10th Cir. 1979). 

Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight as 

that given to direct evidence in determining the issue of factual 

sufficiency to support a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. 

United States v. Smith, 788 F.2d 663 (10th Cir. 1986). This case 

presents both direct evidence in the form of the victim's 

testimony at trial and circumstantial evidence in various forms. 

Together, they present sufficient evidence to support the jury's 

finding that Jochim, and not someone else, committed this robbery. 

In addition to the foregoing, the government showed that Jochim 

-5-

Appellate Case: 87-1505 Document: 010110025164 Date Filed: 01/28/1988 Page: 5 
• 

was in financial straits prior to the robbery, but shortly after 

the robbery bought expensive camera equipment and made a downpayment on a house. Also, the defendant made certain admissions 

in his several conversations with the investigating agents. For 

example, he told them on one occasion that "hypothetically if I 

did the incident, would you let me go home to talk to my mom and 

dad?" Also, an investigating officer testified that Jochim said 

if he could get a personal recognizance bond, he could help them 

"find a gun." (The gun taken from the ATM repairman was never 

recovered.) It is true that defense counsel in cross-examination 

challenged, and quite ably, the accuracy of the testimony of 

certain government witnesses, such as Musser's initial belief as 

to the height and weight of his assailant, but such did not 

torpedo the government's case. It only posed credibility issues 

for the jury. The evidence tying Jochim into this robbery is 

legally sufficient. 

As indicated, the district court admitted into evidence, over 

objection, the plastic replica of an automatic pistol found at the 

scene shortly after the robbery, as well as defendant's statements 

about it. We find no error in this ruling. 

Fed. R. Evid. 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of 

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or 

less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. 

Evid. 403 provides for exclusion of relevant evidence if its 

probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of 

unfair prejudice. The Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules noted 

-6-

Appellate Case: 87-1505 Document: 010110025164 Date Filed: 01/28/1988 Page: 6 
c, 

that unfair prejudice within this context means an undue tendency 

to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not 

necessarily, an emotional one. Fed. Crim. Code and Rules, at 221 

(West 1987). The balancing of probative value against prejudicial 

effect is a matter which is within the discretion of the trial 

court, where admission of evidence is generally favored over 

exclusion. United States v. Guerrero, 667 F.2d 862, 867 (10th 

Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 964 (1982). 

Defense counsel argues that the plastic gun was not the gun 

actually used in the robbery. That is perhaps one version. But 

the government's version is that the discarded plastic gun was the 

weapon used by the robber, who then took, and used, the victim's 

own revolver. It is true that Musser could not identify the 

plastic toy gun as the weapon held by his assailant and had told 

police the weapon was a silver-type metal revolver rather than a 

black automatic; however, he testified that he only got a glance 

at the weapon. He also testified, and he was unequivocal on this 

point, that the weapon used was enclosed in a clear plastic bag or 

"baggie." A toy gun was found in a plastic bag at the scene 

shortly after the robbery; this corroborates the theory that the 

toy gun was used in the robbery. 

The government quite understandably emphasizes Jochim's 

admission that he had handled the toy gun the day of the robbery 

and his explanation as to why his fingerprints might be on the toy 

gun. This statement is clearly relevant because it places in 

defendant's hand a toy gun which was found at the scene shortly 

after the robbery, enclosed in a plastic bag in the same manner 

-7-

Appellate Case: 87-1505 Document: 010110025164 Date Filed: 01/28/1988 Page: 7 
.. 

.. 

that the gun used in the robbery was enclosed in a plastic bag. 

Although perhaps prejudicial to a finding of defendant's 

innocence, the statements are not prejudicial in the context of 

Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

Judgment affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Robert H. McWilliams, 

Circuit Judge 

-8-

Appellate Case: 87-1505 Document: 010110025164 Date Filed: 01/28/1988 Page: 8