Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02012/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02012-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Kenneth Webb
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

F 1 LED 

U~ittil Srtttt'l Ct1'irt of Appe~Ls jr l c·-- · . emi) !r7U1~ 

F£8 2 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v . 

KENNETH WEBB and 

Nos. 89-2012 and 89-2010 

(D.C. Nos. 88-285-1 and 2) 

(District of New Mexico) 

GREGORY JOSEPH ROACHE, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

In the first count of a two-count indictment, Kenneth Webb 

and Gregory Joseph Roache were charged with transporting in 

interstate commerce on or about March 15, 1987, and until on or 

about March 19, 1987, nine AKR-5A-30 General Electric switch gear 

circuit breakers, having a value of more than $5,000, from Grants, 

New Mexico to Pico Rivera, California, knowing that said circuit 

breakers had been stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 and 18 

u.s.c. § 2. In a second count, Webb and Roache were charged, 

inter alia, with selling and disposing of the nine circuit breakers on March 19, 1987, in Pico Rivera, California, knowing that 

* 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: 89-2012 Document: 01019964486 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 1 
the breakers had been stolen, _in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315 and 

18 U.S.C. § 2. At trial, both defendants were found guilty by a 

jury on both counts. Roache was sentenced to two years imprisonment on count 1, and three years probation on count 2 to commence 

after the completion of the sentence imposed on count 1. Webb was 

placed on probation for three years on counts 1 and 2, to be 

served concurrently. Both appeal. Each is represented by his own 

counsel who have filed separate briefs. The separate appeals were 

companioned for oral argument, and both will be handled in this 

opinion. 

Neither Webb nor Roache testified at trial, and no defense 

witness was called. On this state of the record, however, it was 

apparently conceded at trial, and is conceded on appeal, that the 

government established that Webb and Roache transported the nine 

circuit breakers, which had a value of more than $5,000 and had 

been stolen in Grants, New Mexico, from Grants, New Mexico to Pico 

Rivera, California, where they were sold to one Steven Rosen. The 

defendants' defense was that the government had failed to show 

that when transporting and selling the nine circuit breakers, 

either defendant knew he was dealing with stolen property. Each, 

on appeal, challenges the sufficiency of the government's evidence 

bearing on that one issue, i.e., defendants' knowledge that they 

were transporting and later selling stolen property. 

The Anaconda Mine near Grants, New Mexico was a uranium mine 

and mill which had been "mothballed." The properties consisted of 

some twenty-five acres on which were located various buildings in 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2012 Document: 01019964486 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 2 
! 

which mining equipment was stored. There was a perimeter fence, 

and a skeleton crew maintained the property. 

On March 17, 1987, it was discovered by company employees 

that four of the buildings in which electrical switch gear was 

stored had been recently broken into and equipment removed. An 

inventory of equipment wnich had been stolen included eleven AKR5A-30 circuit breakers which had been manufactured by General 

Electric and each bore .a separate serial number. 

On or about March 16, 1987, Roache placed a telephone call to 

Steven Rosen, a partner in Rosen's Electrical Equipment Company in 

Pico Rivera, California. In that telephone conversation, Roache 

advised Rosen that he had nine circuit breakers for sale and asked 

for $500 per circuit breaker. Rosen agreed to buy the nine 

circuit breakers for the sum of $4,500. On March 19, 1987, both 

Webb and Roache arrived in Pico Rivera, California, with the nine 

circuit breakers in hand and sold them to Rosen for $4,500. 1 

Rosen testified that at the time he met with Roache and Webb he 

already knew that there had been a burglary of a plant in New 

Mexico and that some G.E. circuit breakers had been stolen. 

Because of such knowledge, Rosen stated that he specifically asked 

both Roache and Webb if the circuit breakers "came from New 

Mexico." According to Rosen, both stated that the circuit breakers did not come from New Mexico and had been obtained "at an auction. 11 

1 Apparently, transporting these nine circuit breakers was no 

minor matter. According to testimony at trial, the circuit break-

·ers involved here weighed somewhere between 75 - 200 pounds. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2012 Document: 01019964486 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 3 
,/ 

About a month or two later, Webb and Roache were interviewed 

by an FBI agent who was investigating the matter. According to 

that agent, Roache stated that he obtained the nine circuit breakers from two persons named "Hector and Joe" in Grants, New Mexico. 

Roache first stated that he paid "Hector and Joe'' $5,000 for the 

nine circuit breakers which he later sold to Rosen for $4,500. 

Roach later stated that he only paid "Hector and Joe" $3,500 for 

the nine breakers. In his interview, Webb stated that he himself 

had not gone to Grants, New Mexico, and that he sent Roache, his 

nephew, to pick up the breakers. 

An employee of a motel in Grants, New Mexico, identified a 

registration form which bore the name "Webb" and indicated that 

someone using the name "Webb," accompanied by another person, 

2 checked into the motel on March 14, 1987. 

Also, there was testimony regarding the value of used circuit 

breakers. A G.E. representative testified that the circuit breakers in question were sold to Anaconda Mine in 1977 for $5,000 

each. This witness also stated that a circuit breaker of this 

model . would sell for around $7,000 in 1988, and . that in March, 

1987, a used circuit breaker of the type sold Rosen would sell for 

approximately $5,000. Rosen stated he had recently purchased the 

same type of used breakers for $1,000 and $1,350. In this connection, he nonetheless went on to state that although he thought 

that $500 per circuit breaker was "low," it was not "terribly 

low." He also added, however, that, a short time after purchase, 

2 The registration indicated that "Webb" stayed at the motel on 

March 14 and 15, which was a Saturday and Sunday, but the days 

marked on the registration were Sunday and Monday. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2012 Document: 01019964486 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 4 
he sold one of the circuit breakers bought from Webb and Roache 

for $2,500. 

As above mentioned, defendants concede that the government 

established that they transported nine circuit breakers which had 

been stolen from Anaconda Mine across several state boundary lines 

and then . sold the breakers for $4,500 to a dealer in Pico Rivera, 

California. They contend, however, that the government's evidence 

did not show that they knew the circuit breakers had been stolen 

from Anaconda Mines. A motion for judgment of acquittal was made 

by defense counsel at the conclusion of the government's case 

based on the same argument, i.e., insufficient evidence that they 

knew they were transporting and selling stolen goods. The 

district court denied that motion, believing that there was sufficient evidence on that issue to require submission of the case 

to the jury. The jury has now convicted, and we believe there is 

sufficient evidence to support the verdict. 

The defendants were not charged with the actual theft of the 

nine circuit breakers. Such a charge would presumably have been 

filed in state court, depending on the status of the Anaconda Mine 

property. However, the government was not foreclosed from attempting to show that the defendants actually stole the breakers. 

Such a showing would be rather convincing evidence that when they 

transported the breakers across state lines and sold them in 

California they did know they were dealing with stolen property. 

It is generally recognized that proof of the unexplained possession by an accused of recently stolen property may raise an 

inference or presumption of fact that the accused is the thief and 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2012 Document: 01019964486 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 5 
guilty of larceny. United States v. Luman, 624 F.2d 152 (10th 

Cir. 1980); United States v. Baker, 444 F.2d 1290 (10th Cir. 1971) 

("The opportunity for theft, coupled with the inference permitted 

from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property that 

the possessor stole the property, is sufficient for the jury to 

have found both theft and possession."); Hall v. United States, 

404 F.2d 1367 (10th Cir. 1968); Jenkins v. United States, 361 F.2d 

615 (10th Cir. 1966) (Possession of recently stolen property may 

give rise to inferences that the possessor knew the property was 

stolen and/or that the possessor stole the property.). Applied to 

the instant case, the defendants admittedly possessed property 

that was very recently stolen, and whether the "explanation'' given 

the FBI agent was convincing and satisfactory was an issue for the 

jury. 

However, in addition to the evidence that the defendants possessed the breakers very recently after they were stolen, there 

was other evidence to support the government's theory of the case. 

The defendants' statements to Steven Rosen and their statements to 

the FBI agent were inconsistent. Also, the evidence permitted the 

jury to conclude that the price paid Webb and Roache by Rosen was 

well below the market price, i.e., a "distressed'' sale, so to 

speak. Further, there was evidence that Roache and Webb, who were 

apparently residents of Arizona, were in Grants, New Mexico at or 

about the time of the break-in. 

Of course even if the jury accepted the statements of the 

defendants given the FBI that the nine circuit breakers were 

purchased from "Hector and Joe'' in Grants, New Mexico, such would 

-~ 

Appellate Case: 89-2012 Document: 01019964486 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 6 
not ~n itself necessarily negate knowledge by the defendants that, 

even though they did not steal the circuit breakers, they nonetheless knew that they were transporting and selling property that 

had been stolen by "Hector and Joe." "Hector and Joe" did not 

testify at trial, and so far as we can tell from the record before 

us, the defendants had no documentation to support their alleged 

purchase of the circuit breakers from ''Hector and Joe." Acquisition of property which was recently stolen at a "ridiculously low 

price" from an unknown person is sufficient to support an inference that the person acquiring the property knew the property was 

stolen. United States v. Prazak, 623 F.2d 152 (10th Cir. 1980). 

See also Unit.ed States v. Livingston, 816 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 

1987); United States v. Meltzer, 590 F.2d 607 (5th Cir. 1979); 

United States v. Wilson, 523 F.2d 828 (8th Cir. 1975). 

Both Webb and Roache assert as error the prosecution's closing argument to the jury. As stated, both defendants elected to 

invoke their constitutional right not to testify, and, in this 

connection, they claim that the prosecutor in his closing argument 

"indirectly" commented on their failure to testify. Such is not 

our reading of the closing argument. We fail to find any reference to the fact that the defendants did not testify. The 

prosecutor did comment, indirectly if not directly, that neittter 

"Hector nor Joe" had testified, nor was their absence otherwise 

explained, and suggested that "Hector and Joe'' were but fictional 

characters. Such comment we deem permissible. In this regard, 

the government did call as a witness an FBI agent who testified 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-2012 Document: 01019964486 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 7 
that he had made a check of the Grants, New Mexico area and never 

did find even a trace of "Hector or Joe." 

Roache, but not Webb, also asserts that his convictions on 

counts 1 and 2 "merged" and that he should have received only one 

sentence and should not have been separately sentenced under each 

count. We are not persuaded. The gist of count 1 was that Roache 

transported stolen property across a state boundary line knowing 

the same to have been stolen. The gist of count 2, as applied to 

the facts of this case, was that Roache sold stolen property which 

had crossed a state line in Pico Rivera, California and that in so 

doing Roache knew that he was selling stolen property. Count 1 

concerns "transportation" and count 2 concerns "selling." In support of this analysis, see United States v . Thompson, 422 F.2d 

1104 (6th Cir. 1970) and United States v. Pearce, 275 F.2d 318 

(7th Cir. 1960). 3 For analogous cases in the Tenth Circuit, see 

United States v. Bourassa, 411 F.2d 69 (10th Cir. 1969) (upholding 

separate charges for possessing and passing counterfeit coins in 

violation of 18 u.s.c. § 485) and United States v. Koran, 453 F.2d 

144 (10th Cir. 1972) (receiving and possessing stolen goods are 

distinct offenses under 18 u.s.c. § 659) ; there are other cases 

involving convictions under 18 u.s.c. §§ 2312, 2313, 1214, and 

2315, where there was no challenge to the separate convictions and 

punishments. See United States v. Gambic, 541 F.2a 873 (10th Cir. 

3 In Thompson, the Sixth Circuit held that the offenses of 

transporting a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce and later 

concealing the same vehicle which had moved in interstate commerce 

were separate offenses. In Pearce, the Seventh Circuit held a 

defendant can be charged and convicted in separate counts alleging 

both the interstate transportation of stolen furs and receiving 

and storing the same furs after they were transported. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 89-2012 Document: 01019964486 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 8 
1976); United States v. Katz, 535 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1976); 

United States v. Tager, 481 F.2d 97 (10th Cir. 1973). 

Webb, but not Roache, also asserts as trial error the 

district court's denial, in part, of defendants' motion in limine. 

The government was prepared to show that in January, 1987, the 

perimeter fence at the Anaconda Mine had been broken and that the 

tire tracks of a vehicle lead from building to building. However, 

there was no entry into any building and no property was missing. 

The government was also prepared to show that at or about the time 

of this trespass, Webb with a party of four was registered into a 

Grants, New Mexico motel. The government proposed to introduce 

this evidence as tending to show that the defendants were ''casing" 

the site in January, 1987 . 

In connection with the motion in limine, the district court 

granted it, in part, and forbade the government from introducing 

evidence that Webb, and possibly Roache, were in Grants, · New 

Mexico in January, 1987. The district court denied the motion in 

limine, in part, and allowed the government to introduce evidence 

that there was a trespass in January. Webb argues that the 

district court's denial, in part, of his motion in limine 

constitutes reversible error. We disagree. If in fact Webb, and 

possibly Roache, were in Grants, New Mexico in January when a 

trespass of the Anaconda property occurred, such arguably would be 

admissible, particularly when tied into the break-in in March, 

1987, when Roache was admittedly in Grants and a motel registration card indicated a person named Webb was also. However, the 

district court, no doubt out of an abundance of caution, precluded 

-9-

Appellate Case: 89-2012 Document: 01019964486 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 9 
the government from showing that Webb was in Grants in January. 

The fact that there was a trespass in January and that tire . tracks 

indicated a vehicle moving from building to building is, in our 

view, a part of the total facts and circumstances leading up to 

the March break-in. In this regard, an employee of Anaconda 

testified that he did not know who committed the trespass in 

January, and suspected coyote hunters who occasionally did enter 

onto Anaconda's property. In such setting, it is difficult to 

perceive how this testimony was prejudicial to Webb or Roache. 

Any possible error is in our view not reversible error. 

Webb, but not Roache, also complained that the district court 

erred in rejecting four of his tendered instructions, all of which 

bore on . the one issue in the case, i.e., did Webb know that he was 

transporting and selling property which had been stolen. A 

defendant is of course entitled to an instruction on his theory of 

the case, assuming there is some evidence to support his theory, 

but he is not entitled to four or five instructions restating and 

rephrasing the same theory. United States v. Pinto, 838 F.2d 426 

(10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Hoffner, 777 F.2d 1423 (10th 

Cir. 1985); United States v. Martinez, 776 F.2d 1481 (10th Cir. 

1985); United States v. Rothbart, 723 F.2d 752 (10th Cir. 1983). 

Here the jury was instructed that an essential element of the 

crime charged jn count 1 was that the defendant knew he was 

transporting in interstate commerce property which had been 

stolen, and that in connection therewith the government had the 

burden of proving such beyond a reasonable doubt. As to count 2, 

the jury was similarly instructed that the government had to prove 

-10-

Appellate Case: 89-2012 Document: 01019964486 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 10 
• 

' 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Webb knew the property he was selling was stolen property. The jury was adequately instructed on 

this issue, which, as indicated, was the only issue in the case. 

Judgments affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Robert H. McWilliams 

Circuit Judge 

-11-

Appellate Case: 89-2012 Document: 01019964486 Date Filed: 02/26/1990 Page: 11