Valenzuela
United States v. Valenzuela
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Ernesto Valenzuela appeals his jury conviction for two violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a); bank robbery and attempted bank robbery. We affirm.
1. The district court did not err in instructing the jury on the intimidation element of the robbery charges because, taken as a whole, the instructions were neither misleading nor inadequate. United States v. Spillone, 879 F.2d 514, 525 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 878 , 111 S.Ct. 210 , 112 L.Ed.2d 170 (1990).
2. The two counts of robbery were properly joined under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(a) due to the similar nature of the alleged crimes. United States v. Friedman, 445 F.2d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 958 , 92 S.Ct. 326 , 30 L.Ed.2d 275 (1971).
3. The district court’s refusal to sever the counts was not error as Valenzuela failed to demonstrate any manifest prejudice resulting from the combined trial. United States v. Johnson, 820 F.2d 1065, 1070 (9th Cir.1987).
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs, videotape and other documents. United States v. Nguyen, 88 F.3d 812, 818 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 986 , 117 S.Ct. 443 , 136 L.Ed.2d 339 (1996). This…