Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07013/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07013-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Walter Wayne McKeever
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

. FILED 

Umted Stares Court of Appeals 

Tench Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAR .. 1 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

WALTER WAYNE McKEEVER, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-7013 

(D.C. No. 89-72-CR) 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

Before McKAY, SETH, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

On March 8, 1990, Walter Wayne McKeever was convicted of 

transporting stolen computer equipment in interstate commerce in 

violation of 18 u.s.c. S 2314 (1988). Mr. McKeever contends that 

the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a 

mistrial or a continuance after the government failed to disclose 

evidence prior to trial. 

* 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: 90-7013 Document: 010110031046 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 1 
I 

~ 

I. 

Two IBM computer systems were stolen from the Weyerhauser 

Corporation plant near Broken Bow, Oklahoma, on November 29, 1988, 

and December 31, 1988. Mr. McKeever was an employee at 

Weyerhauser at the time of the thefts. On February 10, 1989, the 

computer equipment was recovered from an audio-video store in 

Arkadelphia, Arkansas, managed by Jack Weir. 

Three government witnesses, Mr. Weir, Alan Dulin, and Robert 

Williams, testified that in early December 1988 the defendant 

tried to trade an IBM keyboard and monitor to Mr. Weir for car 

stereo equipment. Mr. Weir refused to exchange the goods because 

the keyboard and monitor did not constitute a complete computer 

system. However, on December 31, 1988, the defendant returned to 

Mr. Weir's store in Arkadelphia with additional computer items to 

make two complete systems. The trade was consummated at that 

time. 

Mr. Williams testified that he confronted the defendant after 

learning that the two computers contained Weyerhauser programs. 

He testified that the defendant admitted stealing the equipment 

from Weyerhauser. 

At trial, the defendant denied stealing the computer equipment. He contended that four of the government's witnesses were 

protecting one another by placing the blame on him. In support of 

his argument that the witnesses were protecting one another, the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7013 Document: 010110031046 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 2 
• 

defendant presented evidence demonstrating that three of them, Mr. 

Dulin, Mr. Williams, and John LaRue, were fraternity brothers. 

The defendant's appeal concerns two incidents at trial dealing with the government's introduction of evidence. Mr. Weir had 

provided the government with a photocopy of an invoice documenting 

the trade of the stolen computers. The invoice did not appear to 

bear the defendant's signature. However, on the night before 

trial the government received a clearer copy of the invoice bearing the defendant's signature. Defense counsel objected to the 

introduction of the new invoice into evidence, complaining that 

the prosecution had assured him that no signature existed and that 

the defendant was being deprived of the opportunity to have the 

newer copy examined by a handwriting expert to determine if it was 

a forgery. The trial court sustained the objection, and the 

poorer quality photocopy was introduced. Mr. Weir was allowed to 

testify that the defendant signed the invoice. 

The second incident to which the defendant assigns error concerns the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Buck Ray. The deputy 

sheriff was asked if any fingerprints were lifted at the scene of 

the computer equipment theft. He answered that he did lift some 

fingerprints. At this point defense counsel moved for a mistrial 

because the prints were not provided upon discovery. The defendant argued that the fingerprints would be exculpatory if they did 

not match his prints and that they should have been provided in a 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-7013 Document: 010110031046 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 3 
• 

timely fashion so he could test them. The motion was denied. 

The prosecution told the district court that the government 

had been informed there were no prints. Deputy Sheriff Ray 

further testified that he had not provided the government with the 

prints he had lifted. On redirect, the deputy sheriff testified 

that he had lifted four smudges that were unidentifiable and that 

there was no reason to have the prints analyzed. 

II. 

The defendant argues that he was unfairly surprised by the 

production of the clearer copy of the invoice bearing his signature. He also contends that the government violated the discovery 

obligations of Rule 16 (a)(l)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. 

Rule 16 (a)(l)(C) requires the government, upon the defendant's request, to permit the defendant to inspect documents which 

are in the custody of the government and which are material to the 

preparation of a defense or which are intended for use by the government as evidence in chief at trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 

(a)(l)(C). If a party fails to comply with this rule, the court 

"may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection, grant 

a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing evidence not 

disclosed, or it may enter such other order as it deems just under 

the circumstances." Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 (d) (2). We will not disturb the district court's discovery rulings absent an abuse of 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-7013 Document: 010110031046 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 4 
• 

discretion. Shaklee Corp. v. Gunnell, 748 F.2d 548, 550 (10th 

Cir. 1984). 

Jack Weir did not supply the government with the clearer copy 

of the invoice bearing the defendant's signature until the night 

before trial. The government could not have produced the clearer 

copy when it did not have custody of the document. See United 

States v. Cannington, 729 F.2d 702, 712 (11th Cir. 1984). In 

addition, the district court sustained the defendant's objection 

to the introduction of the clearer copy. The poorer copy which 

had been given to the defendant was introduced. We conclude that 

the district court did not err in regard to the invoice. 

The defendant also argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion when it failed to grant either a mistrial or a continuance upon discovery of the fingerprints to which Deputy 

Sheriff Ray testified. The existence of the undisclosed evidence 

was discovered for the first time at trial. The government cannot 

be faulted for failing to turn over fingerprints which it did not 

have in its possession. See United States v. Chavez-Vernaza, 844 

F.2d 1368, 1375 (9th Cir. 1987). Moreover, the deputy sheriff did 

not analyze the fingerprints because he determined that they were 

smudged and unidentifiable. In light of the facts contained in 

the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion when it refused to grant a mistrial. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-7013 Document: 010110031046 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 5 
• 

The trial court's order is AFFIRMED. 

-6-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-7013 Document: 010110031046 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 6