Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/544/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:50:18+00:00

Document:
Respondents were indicated for entering a federally insured bank with intent to rob it by force and violence (Count 1) and robbing the bank by force and violence (Count 2), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), with possessing the funds stolen in the robbery (Count 3), in violation of § 2113(c), and with assaulting four people with dangerous weapons during the robbery (Counts 4-8), in violation of § 2113(d), and thereafter found guilty and sentenced on all counts. The Court of Appeals reversed, and ordered a new trial on the ground that, as held in Heflin v. United States, 358 U. S. 415, it was plain error to allow a jury to convict the accused of receiving and possessing the same money taken in the same bank robbery, and that, under Milanovich v. United States, 365 U. S. 551, remanding the case for a new trial was the appropriate appellate remedy.
1. A person convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (b), and (d) cannot also be convicted of receiving or possessing the robbery proceeds in violation of § 2113(c). Heflin, supra at 358 U. S. 419-420. Pp. 424 U. S. 547-548.
2. The Court of Appeals was mistaken in requiring a new trial as the remedy for the trial court's not having dismissed Count 3 for lack of proof, since the error can be corrected by vacating the convictions and sentences under that count. Milanovich, supra, distinguished. Pp. 424 U. S. 548-549.
3. The sentences under Counts 1 and 2 should also be vacated. Prince v. United States, 352 U. S. 322. P. 424 U. S. 549 n. 12.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all Members joined except STEVENS, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. WHITE, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., joined, post, p. 424 U. S. 551.
eight counts of the indictment. Specifically, the appellate court held that this Court's decision in Heflin v. United States, 358 U. S. 415, had made it clear tat "it is plain error to allow a jury to convict an accused of taking and possessing the same money obtained in the same bank robbery," and that, under this Court's decision in Milanovich v. United States, 365 U. S. 551, "the proper appellate remedy is to remand for a new trial." 506 F.2d 352, 354. We granted certiorari because of the discordant views in the Circuits regarding the proper application of the Heflin and Milanovich decisions. [Footnote 7] 421 U.S. 987.
"subsection (c) was not designed to increase the punishment for him who robs a bank, but only to provide punishment for those who receive the loot from the robber."
U.S. 322, the merger could not include the conviction under § 2113(c). Receipt or possession of the proceeds of a bank robbery in violation of § 2113(c) is simply not a lesser included offense within the total framework of the bank robbery provisions of § 2113. Rather, § 2113(c) reaches a different "group of wrongdoers," i.e., "those who receive the loot from the robber."
stolen property. [Footnote 11] The trial judge refused to instruct the jury that the petitioner could not be convicted for both stealing and receiving the same currency, and she was convicted and separately sentenced on both counts. This Court held that, under Heflin, the jury should have been instructed that the petitioner could not be separately convicted for stealing and receiving the proceeds of the same theft. Since it was impossible to say upon which count, if either, a properly instructed jury would have convicted the petitioner, and in view of the grossly disparate sentences imposed upon the petitioner and upon her husband (who was convicted only upon the larceny count), her convictions were set aside and the case was remanded for a new trial.
"(c) Whoever receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of, any property or money or other thing of value knowing the same to have been taken from a bank, credit union, or a savings and loan association, in violation of subsection (b) of this section shall be subject to the punishment provided by said subsection (b) for the taker."
Two of the men had entered the bank, brandishing pistols, while the third man had remained in the getaway car outside.
A third man indicated, Billy Wayne Davis, had pleaded guilty, and was a principal witness for the Government at the respondents' trial.
The judge imposed 20-year sentences for aggravated bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)), 25-year sentences for assaults in the course of the bank robbery (§ 2113(d)), and 10-year sentences for possession of the proceeds of the robbery (§ 2113(c)), all of the sentences to run concurrently.
See, e.g., United States v. Sharpe, 452 F.2d 1117, 1119 (CA1); United States v. Ploof, 464 F.2d 116, 119-120 (CA2); United States v. Roach, 321 F.2d 1, 6 (CA3); Phillips v. United States, 518 F.2d 108, 110 (CA4); United States v. Sellers, 520 F.2d 1281, 1286 (CA4); United States v. Harris, 346 F.2d 182, 184 (CA4); United States v. Abercrombie, 480 F.2d 961, 964-965 (CA5); Ethridge v. United States, 494 F.2d 351 (CA6); United States v. Dion, 507 F.2d 683 (CA8); United States v. Tyler, 466 F.2d 920 (CA9); Keating v. United States, 413 F.2d 1028 (CA9); Glass v. United States, 351 F.2d 678 (CA10).
365 U.S. at 365 U. S. 557 (dissenting opinion).
18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 2.
365 U.S. at 365 U. S. 554-555, n. 5.
In light of Prince v. United States, 352 U. S. 322, the concurrent sentences under Counts 1 and 2 should also be vacated, leaving the respondents under single 25-year prison sentences for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d).
Such a case is not hard to hypothesize. A grand jury or prosecutor may often possess clear evidence that the proceeds of a bank robbery were found in a certain person's possession, and less certain eyewitness or circumstantial evidence that that person was an actual participant in the robbery.
The statement to the contrary in a dissenting opinion in Milanovich, 365 U.S. at 365 U. S. 558, is incorrect.
If, on the other hand, the indictment or information charges only a violation of § 2113(c), it is incumbent upon the prosecution at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt only the elements of that offense, and the identity of the participant or participants in the robbery or theft is irrelevant to the issue of the defendant's guilt. While a mechanistic reading of Heflin's language might not wholly support this rule, it is to be remembered that Heflin ultimately held no more than that a person could not be convicted and separately sentenced under § 2113(a), (b), or (d) and under § 2113(c), because § 2113(c) could not be used to "pyramid penalties." 358 U.S. at 358 U. S. 419. Heflin did not purport to, and did not, add to or alter the statutory elements of the offense under § 2113(c).
Because the Court deems this case distinguishable from Milanovich v. United States, 365 U. S. 551 (1961), it sees no occasion to consider the continuing validity of that decision; and I do not read the Court's opinion as reaffirming, in addition to describing, the Milanovich rule that a new trial is required when (1) a jury is erroneously permitted to convict a defendant both of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (b), or (d), and of knowing possession of the proceeds of that robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(c), and (2) there is evidence to support both convictions.
offense to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. That the jury went on to find that the defendant also possessed the proceeds of the robbery -- whether on a different date and on different proof or not -- casts no doubt on the trustworthiness of the findings on the robbery count. The problem of erroneously permitting the jury to consider and convict on two counts -- on each of which, considered separately, the jury was properly instructed -- when they should have considered and convicted on only one bears no relation to that presented in Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931), in which the jury was permitted to convict on a single count on both a valid and an invalid theory. In Stromberg, it was impossible to know whether a properly instructed jury would have convicted the defendant of anything. In the class of cases governed by Milanovich, the robbery count is untainted by the fact that, in addition to its finding of guilty on that count the jury also made findings on the possession count, for those findings are factually consistent with the findings on the robbery count.
case would result in an expenditure of court resources and the possibility of an acquittal -- through loss of evidence or other causes -- of a reliably convicted defendant for no reason.
* If district judges instruct juries as the majority opinion requires, this problem will not arise. However, since this Court's decision in Milanovich v. United States, 365 U. S. 551 (1961), district judges should have been instructing juries not to consider possession counts, if they convict of robbery. As this case and others attest, e.g., United States v. Sellers, 520 F.2d 1281 (CA4 1975), cert. pending, Nos. 74-1476 and 74-6503; Phillips v. United States, 518 F.2d 108 (CA4 1975) (en banc), cert. pending, Nos. 75-167 and 75-5457; United States v. Dixon, 507 F.2d 683 (CA8 1974), cert. pending, No. 74-5869, district judges have nonetheless made mistakes, and there is no reason to believe that the mistakes will completely cease just because the Court today reiterates the correct instructions.

References: § 2113
 § 2113
 § 2113
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2113
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2113
 § 2113
 § 2113
 § 2113
 § 2113
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2113
 § 2113
 § 2113
 § 2113
 § 2113
 § 2113
 v. 
 § 2113
 § 2113
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.