United States v. Kimberly Ann Coleman

The issue in this case is whether there is a fatal variance between the evidence introduced at trial and the charge contained in an indictment. We conclude that there is not and reverse the trial court’s order granting a motion for judgment of acquittal, non obstante veredicto.

A jury found Kimberly Ann Coleman guilty of robbing the Pacific First Federal Savings and Loan Association (Pacific First), under an indictment charging her with robbery of “a savings and loan association; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113 (a).”

18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) proscribes as a federal crime the robbery of a “savings and loan association” which is further defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (g) as including any “Federal savings and loan association” and any “ ‘insured institution’ as defined in § 401 of the National Housing Act as amended.” The National Housing Act definition encompasses institutions insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), which in this case insured the deposits of Pacific First. See 12 U.S.C. § 1724 (b).

Because the institution as named in the indictment included the word “Federal,” the trial court concluded that the indictment…