United States v. Clotilda Calderon Rojas
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clotilda Calderon ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was tried and convicted in the district court, sitting without a jury, for misapplication of bank funds ( 18 U.S.C. § 656 ).
Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient, in that it “did not exclude every hypothesis but guilt.” As this court held in Sablan v. Peo. of Guam, 434 F.2d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 1970), “[T]he proper test is not whether the evidence excludes every hypothesis except that of guilt, but rather, ‘whether the [trier of fact] could reasonably arrive at [its] conclusion’.” See United States v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237, 1243 (9th Cir. 1969). Although appellant’s testimony conflicted with that of prosecution witnesses, there was substantial evidence to support a finding of guilt. It was for the trial judge, as finder of fact, to assess the weight and credibility of the witnesses’ testimony. Rule 23, F.R.Crim.P.; Fernandez-Delgado v. United States, 368 F.2d 34 (9th Cir. 1966).
Nor did the trial court err in admitting into evidence testimony concerning a damaging admission made by appellant. The admission was made to a bank official, not a law enforcement officer, and the trial court specifically found, after hearing the parties, that the statement was voluntary.
Lastly, appellant argues that her admission was not corroborated. She is mistaken.
The judgment is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(in a bench trial a bank employee’s damaging admission to a bank official regarding misapplication of bank funds was admissible, after the court determined that the statement was voluntary)
-
(“It was for the trial 8 judge, as finder of fact, to assess the weight and credibility of the witnesses' testimony.”)
Cited by 15 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- United States v. Kenneth Joe Whitten, John Elmer Gaiefsky, Jack Wayne Gish, Richard Lawrence Shimel
- United States v. Robert L. Beecroft, Arthur T. Harrison, James F. Hennig, and Delbert L. Rogers
- United States v. John Robert Heck, Jr.
- United States v. Tommy Joe Coplen, United States of America v
- State v. Bodtke
- United States v. Anthony Espinoza, United States of America v. Jose De Jesus Oropeza-Briones
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.