Opinion ID: 529387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellant Turner

Text: 81 Mr. Turner challenges his conviction of bankruptcy concealment claiming that evidence supporting his conviction is insufficient, and that his conviction, in light of the acquittal of another defendant on a separate count (but arising out of the same facts), constitutes an inconsistent verdict which cannot be sustained. 39 82 Here, the evidence indicated that on September 24, 1981, (eight days after bankruptcy was filed by Mr. Turner on behalf of the clearinghouses, and the day before a bankruptcy trustee was to be named ), Mr. Turner deposited two checks drawn on clearinghouse funds into his office account at Valley Bank & Trust. The next morning, before appearing at bankruptcy court, Mr. Turner called Valley Bank and requested that the checks he had deposited the previous afternoon be taken to Empire State Bank 40 and negotiated for cashier's checks. Those checks were to be redeposited into Mr. Turner's account. That same morning a Valley Bank employee carried out Mr. Turner's instructions. 83 At approximately 10:00 a.m. that day, Mr. Turner appeared before the Bankruptcy Court and represented to the court that he had no control over clearinghouse assets. At that hearing the bankruptcy court ordered that the clearinghouse accounts be frozen. By the time the court clerk contacted Empire State, however, the transactions at issue had already been completed. We believe the evidence was more than sufficient for any reasonable trier of fact to find the essential elements of bankruptcy concealment beyond a reasonable doubt. 84 Mr. Turner also claims that Mr. Ashby's acquittal under Count 36 of the indictment, and Mr. Turner's own conviction under Count 35 cannot be reconciled because both arose out of the same set of facts. A properly convicted defendant cannot win reversal because the jury acquitted another defendant. United States v. Cudd, 499 F.2d 1239, 1242 (10th Cir.1974) (A joint indictment ... is but a procedural convenience and is to be considered as a separate charge against each defendant.). The fact that the same jury found Mr. Ashby not guilty of bankruptcy concealment on Count 36 in no way calls into question Mr. Turner's proper conviction under Count 35.