This is an appeal from a conviction on three counts of an indictment charging two substantive violations of the narcotics laws, 26 U.S.C. §§ 4704 and 7237, and conspirаcy under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Appellant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and a $500 fine on each count — the prison terms to run concurrently.
Twice during July and August of 1958 an informer working for the federal government visited a barber shop operated by appellant and her sister. On both occasions the informer was еquipped with a Schmidt radio transmitter enabling another federal agent to listen in on transpiring events. Evidence was introduced to show that appellаnt was in the shop during both visits and that the informer left the shop both times in possession of bindles of narcotics which she didn’t have when she went in. Agents listening in on the Schmidt device testified to conversations between the informer and another woman occurring while the informer was in the shop and during which many highly incriminating admissions werе made by the person with whom the informer was talking. Further evidence identified appellant as that person. The informer did not testify, and appellant оffered no evidence in defense.
Appellant contends on appeal that the lower court erred in admitting into evidence the convеrsations recorded on the Schmidt device and the two bindles of cocaine. The ruling as to the conversations is challenged on the ground that appellant’s voice was not properly identified. And the ruling concerning the cocaine is attacked on the basis that the government did not adequаtely connect appellant with the evidence introduced. Appellant also contends that there is insufficient evidence to convict her on any of the three counts charged.
The problem of identifying a speaker whose voice is heard over a radio transmitter is similar to that involvеd in identifying someone speaking on the telephone. Clearly such identity can be established either by direct or circumstantial evidence. United Statеs v. Bucur, 7 Cir., 1952,
Appellant’s contention that the bindles of cocaine introduced in evidence were inadequately conneсted to her is also without merit. The government showed that the informer twice entered appellant’s barber shop without narcotics and twice left the shop with them; and appellant was placed in the shop on both occasions. Moreover, appellant’s recorded conversation with the informer contained admissions which clearly connected her to the narcotics in question. See Mullaney v. United States, 9 Cir., 1936,
Appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support conviction on any of the three counts charged. It is beyond debate that a conviction will stand if supported by substantial evidence, the evidence being considered in the light most favorable to the рrosecution. Glasser v. United States, 1942,
As to the substantive violations, the admissions of appellant heard over the Schmidt device, and testified to by the listening agents, clearly establish appellant’s guilt.
1
The conspiracy count, while causing somewhat more difficulty, is also supported by sufficient evidence.
2
Appellant admitted that her sistеr Teresa had received from the “connection” the bindle of narcotics sold to the informer in July, and that while the sale was in progress Teresa had told both the appellant and the informer that she, Teresa, was well aware that narcotics were being transferred — and wanted to taste some.
3
These admissions serve to show that Teresa, the alleged co-conspirator, had guilty knowledge of the unlawful activity and, more significantly, had knowingly committed an act in furtherance of its perpetration. By passing the narcotics from the “connection” to her sister and by tasting, in the course of the illеgal sale, some of the cocaine which had passed through her hands, Teresa demonstrated a clear intent to work in concert with appellant to achieve unlawful ends. The crime of conspiracy was thus established. See Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 1943,
Affirmed.
Notes
. The admissions of appellant overheard on the Schmidt device were as follows: On the occasion of the sale of narcotics in July appellant said to the informer posing as a buyer, “I’ve got you two $20 papers and I want to taste soma of it.” And when the informеr said she wanted to make a bigger purchase the next day, appellant replied, “Fine. If my store hasn’t run out of stuff you can pick it up. And today when the connection came by I wasn’t in the barber shop; so, he gave the stuff to Teresa and she gave it to me when I came back.” On the occasion оf the sale in August when the informer came by to pick up some narcotics, appellant said, “I will have to call my connection and place .the order.” Approximately two hours later appellant was heard to say, “Here’s the stuff, but be careful. It is more powerful than the last stuff and I want to tаke a snort before you go.”
Because appellant’s admissions in this case
were
made during the course of the crime rather than after its consummation, they may suffice to convict, even though they are uncorroborated, if they establish the crime charged. Warszower v. United States, 1941,
. An appellate court will not examine a conviction upon one count of a multi-count indictment if there is a valid conviction upon any other count, if the sentences are to run concurrently, and if the period of imprisonment is no longer than it could have been had there been conviction on the good count alone, Lawn v. United States, 1958,
. Again, the admissions of аppellant need no corroboration. See note 1, supra. Appellant admitted that while the narcotics were being transferred to the informer, Teresa, knocking on the door, said, “If you don’t let me in and give me some, I’m going to tell your old man what you’re doing.” Appellant further admitted that Teresa then came in and “took a taste” of the narcotics.