Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin Thomas TISDALE, III and Tim Bryan Tisdale, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1981-03-24
Citations: 647 F.2d 91
Docket Number: Nos. 78-1988, 78-1989
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin Thomas TISDALE, III and Tim Bryan Tisdale, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 647
Pages: 91–96

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin Thomas TISDALE, III and Tim Bryan Tisdale, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 78-1988, 78-1989.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 26, 1979.
Decided March 24, 1981.
Rehearing Denied in No. 78-1989 June 1, 1981.
R. Raymond Twohig, Jr., Asst. Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, N. M., for defendant-appellant Benjamin Thomas Tis-dale, III.
Anthony F. Renzo, Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellant Tim Bryan Tisdale.
Richard J. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty. (R. E. Thompson, U. S. Atty., Albuquerque, N. M., with him on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before SETH, Chief Judge, HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge, and BROWN, District Judge .
The Honorable Wesley E. Brown of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SETH, Chief Judge.
These two cases were consolidated for argument and disposition. The two defendants were charged and convicted by a jury on two counts for the interstate transportation of stolen property and the sale of stolen goods. The item of property on which the charge was based was an antique silver tea set which was stolen in Denver City, Texas and sold to an undercover agent in Albuquerque. The tea set was unique, had enamel work on it, was made in Russia by a silversmith whose name appeared thereon and whose work was recognized by antique dealers. The basic issue concerns the admission into evidence over defendants' objection of a tape recording of a meeting at which both defendants were present, an informer, and a Bob Scott. The objection to this tape was based on the statements of defendant Tim Tisdale that he had 500 pounds of marijuana to sell. The statement was made during the course of the meeting, after the tea set which he brought to the meeting had been unwrapped. The marijuana statement was followed by other references to the sale of the tea set.
Other errors urged are directed to the giving of a "recently stolen" property instruction, the refusal of a motion during trial for a severance, testimony of a statement by defendant Tim Tisdale that when burglarizing a home he had seen a Rembrandt painting but did not steal it, and testimony that he had taken an undercover agent on a tour of Albuquerque to "case" jewelry stores. The tape covered one meeting when the defendants arrived in Albuquerque with the tea set and it was shown to the informer. The meeting was to discuss its sale, and the conversation included the marijuana reference. Testimony as to other discussions at other places referred to the other illegal acts.
In the taped conversation Tim Tisdale suggested to the informer that he show "it" (the tea set) to "him" (the prospective purchaser, an undercover agent). The informer said, "Let me get back with him." Then Tim Tisdale said, "Yeah, I've got 500 pounds of weed too. If you can move that." The "weed" was discussed. Then the conversation returned to the tea set and its purchaser. Again, this was one conversation and one meeting with both defendants present.
The defense advanced to the charges was that it all was an innocent transaction. The taped conversation demonstrated, as did the other conversations, that the defendants were prepared to sell illicit goods and there was no mistake. It demonstrated that the transaction was not an innocent one and it was appropriate that the jury was made aware of all the circumstances. The evidence showed place and intent. The trial court's ruling under Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence was correct. It is apparent that under Rules 404 and 403 the trial judge had to balance the danger of prejudice against the probative value of the testimony. When all circumstances are considered it was not error to have admitted the reference to marijuana in the tapes nor references to the other acts challenged.
Rule 403 says that the evidence "may be excluded." It may be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice." This is, of course, any evidence not just that relating to other incidents. The prejudice must be "unfair."
The trial judge did not admonish the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted and defendants made no request that this be done. The court gave full and complete instructions as to the tape at the conclusion of the trial.
We cannot see that marijuana is so different as an illicit good for sale, from the stolen tea set, the jewelry store tour, the burglary, and the other actions which related to or grew out of the meeting, and demonstrated the circumstances surrounding the meetings. The whole relationship was important for the jury in its evaluation of the innocence of the transaction. We cannot say that mention of marijuana is different or so unusual as to outweigh the probative value of all the circumstances as determined by the trial court.
We have commented before on the changes brought about by Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and noted the change from the starting position of exclusion "unless" to admission "unless." This is a significant change and is important in the examination of cases decided before the change in the Rules. The defendants have not demonstrated that any "unless" element is present to overcome the "admission." The evidence was properly admitted under Rule 404. The standards were discussed starting with United States v. Nolan, 551 F.2d 266 (10th Cir.), and need not be repeated here. See United States v. Lucero, 601 F.2d 1147 (10th Cir.).
The "recently stolen" instruction was given, as mentioned, and the defendants assert that the lapse of time between the date of the theft and the first evidence that the tea set was in their possession was too long to permit the giving of the instruction. This was a period of about sixteen months. We cannot agree because the tea set was unique, it was very unusual, and bore inscriptions showing its age and origin. It was something which could not be disposed of easily or quickly. The defendant Tim Tisdale remarked to the informer, who had indicated that the tea set could be sold: "We basically never had an outlet for this type of stuff before." The tea set was delivered by defendants in a bag which had been stolen from the house at the time the tea set had been taken. We must hold that despite the long interval the particular circumstances made the giving of the instruction proper. During the course of the instruction on recently stolen property the court twice reminded the jury that the defendant need not take the stand to explain possession. The court said also:
"You will always bear in mind that the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.
"It is the exclusive province of the Jury to determine whether the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence in the case warrant any inference which the law permits you to draw from possession of recently-stolen property. If any possession the accused may have had of recently-stolen property is consistent with innocence, or if you entertain reasonable doubt of guilt, you must acquit the accused."
We find no error in the other points advanced by the defendants including the motion for continuance, for severance, and the urging that there was a conflict by reason of the fact that the one retained attorney represented both brothers. An attorney for each had been appointed. Then an attorney was retained. As to the conflict point we find no conflict shown by the record and no possibility of prejudice or conflict. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), does not lead to a contrary result. See also Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 and United States v. Warledo, 557 F.2d 721 (10th Cir.). The statement of defendants' attorney demonstrates that no issue arose.
A further reference must be made to the admission of the tapes into evidence. With the availability of discovery the defendant also assumes an obligation or duty. This duty is to call to the attention of the trial court before trial issues as were here raised at trial as to the tape. It is apparent that much of the tape was admissible beyond question, but that a question did exist as to the marijuana statement. The attorney for defendants had a duty to raise this issue before trial by a pre-trial motion as the rules contemplate. The matter could have then been considered and if necessary the reference could have been omitted. But this was not done and it became a possible trial error. Long before trial the defendant had moved for discovery and the Government advised the court that Rule 16 material would be furnished. The attorney indicated that he knew what was in the tape as he said as part of his objection: "I have some idea as to what the tape recordings purportedly contain." It should be pointed out that the attorney who tried the case was in the firm but not the attorney who was scheduled to try the case. In instances where it is apparent that an objection has been intentionally saved for trial, or where the trial attorney did not regard it of sufficient importance to raise before trial, we will consider it to have been waived.
AFFIRMED.