Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9
 
817 F.2d 146322 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1650
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Christian David LEPANTO, Defendant-Appellant.
 No. 85-2687.
United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit.
 May 7, 1987.
Robert T. McAllister of Dill, Dill & McAllister, Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellant.Kenneth R. Fimberg, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Robert N. Miller, U.S. Atty., withhim on the brief), Denver, Colo., for plaintiff-appellee.Before BARRETT, LOGAN, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.LOGAN, Circuit Judge.1Following a bench trial, the district court convicted Christian David Lepanto(defendant) under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3 as an accessory after the fact to themanufacture of a destructive device in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861(f).
1
 Onappeal, defendant argues that (1) the indictment was insufficient and shouldhave been dismissed; (2) the district court erred in admitting into evidenceitems allegedly removed from carpet fragments discarded behind defendant'sresidence; (3) the district court erred in admitting evidence of flight; and (4) theevidence was insufficient to establish the elements of the offense. After carefully reviewing the record, we affirm the district court's judgment.2* The superseding indictment charged defendant with knowledge that his brother, Aton Omar Lepanto, had made one or more destructive devices inviolation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861(f).
2
 See 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5845(a)(8) (including"destructive device" in definition of "firearm"). Section 5861(f) prohibits themaking of a firearm "in violation of the provisions of [Chapter 53 of Title 26,
 
IIU.S.C.]." That chapter imposes numerous requirements on the makers of firearms, including paying tax, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5821, obtaining the approval of the Treasury Secretary, id. Sec. 5822, and registering and identifying eachfirearm made, id. Secs. 5841, 5842. Defendant argues that the government'sfailure to specify which of these requirements Omar Lepanto violated rendersthe indictment fatally defective.3An indictment is sufficient if it (1) contains the elements of the offense chargedand clearly apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and (2)enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction as a bar to future prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Salazar, 720 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10thCir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1110, 105 S.Ct. 789, 83 L.Ed.2d 783 (1985);United States v. Janoe, 720 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465U.S. 1036, 104 S.Ct. 1310, 79 L.Ed.2d 707 (1984).4In United States v. Mayo, 705 F.2d 62 (2d Cir.1983), the court refused todismiss an indictment charging two violations of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861(e)(transferring a firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. ch. 53) even though theindictment failed to identify the provisions of chapter 53 that were violated. Id.at 77-78. Similarly, in United States v. Salazar, we upheld an indictmentcharging unlawful acquisition and possession of food stamp coupons inviolation of 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2024(b) (prohibiting the use, transfer, acquisition,alteration or possession of such coupons "in any manner not authorized by[chapter 51 of Title 7]") even though the indictment did not allege the "manner"in which the acquisition or possession was unauthorized. 720 F.2d at 1486-87 &n. 4. No greater specificity is required under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3 in order toadequately allege knowledge on the defendant's part that "an offense against theUnited States" has been committed. The superseding indictment here tracks thelanguage of Sec. 3 and provides an approximate date and a brief description of defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct. It was sufficient to apprise defendant of the nature of the charges against him and to act as a bar to further prosecutionfor the same conduct.5On August 23, 1984, Postal Inspector Kent Powell, who was conductingsurveillance behind the Denver rooming house in which defendant resided,observed defendant carry a roll of carpet out of the building and throw it in adumpster. Powell testified that the carpet had "jagged edges" and appeared to be turned inside out, exposing a "dark brown backing-type material." R. III,167; R. IV, 180. Powell left without removing the carpet from the dumpster.
 
"[I]f, upon consideration of the nature of the article, the circumstances surroundingthe preservation and custody of it and the likelihood of intermeddlers tampering withit, the trial judge deems the article to be in substantially the same condition as whenthe crime was committed, he may admit it into evidence, and his determination 'thatthe showing as to identification and nature * * * is sufficient to warrant reception of an article in evidence may not be overturned except for a clear abuse of discretion.' "6The next day, Postal Inspector Wendell Riutzel recovered a roll of carpet withthe backing exposed from the dumpster behind defendant's residence. Riutzelinitialed the carpet in two places and turned it over to Postal Inspector Patrick Carr. Carr sealed the carpet in a bag and sent it to the Postal Service's crimelaboratory in Washington, D.C. There, various items were removed from thecarpet, including a small piece of gray insulation connected by expert testimonywith one of the bombs made by Omar Lepanto. These items were offered intoevidence as Government's Exhibit 5B, and were eventually admitted.7Defendant contends that Exhibit 5B was never properly authenticated due tofour breaks in the chain of custody: first, the government failed to establish thatthe carpet defendant placed in the dumpster came from his room; second, it wasnot established that the carpet recovered by Inspector Riutzel was the same asthe carpet placed in the dumpster the day before; third, the crime laboratoryreceived a roll of carpeting containing three separate pieces, only two of which bore Riutzel's initials; fourth, the government's witnesses could not identifywhich of the three pieces of carpeting the items in Exhibit 5B had come from.8Authentication or identification of an item of real evidence may beaccomplished by any means sufficient to support a finding that the item is whatits proponent claims. Fed.R.Evid. 901(a); United States v. Zink, 612 F.2d 511,514 (10th Cir.1980) (authentication may be accomplished by chain of custodyor witness identification).910Reed v. United States, 377 F.2d 891, 893 (10th Cir.1967) (quoting Gallego v.United States, 276 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir.1960); see also United States v. Gay,774 F.2d 368, 374 (10th Cir.1985).11In this case, the only significant break in the chain of custody occurred whenthe carpet was left overnight in the dumpster behind defendant's residence.
3
Inspector Riutzel's failure to initial all three pieces of carpet, and thecommingling of items recovered from the three pieces, cause us little concernin light of the undisputed testimony that the carpet was recovered from thedumpster in a single roll or bundle and was not unrolled or otherwise disturbed

Ihre Neugier belohnen

Alles, was Sie lesen wollen.
Jederzeit. Überall. Auf jedem Gerät.
Keine Verpflichtung. Jederzeit kündbar.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505