Can testimony from a co-defendant at trial be used to establish a motive for possession of a machine gun?

Testimony regarding a robbery planned by appellant was admissible at

[427 F.2d 544]

trial for the purpose of establishing a motive for possession of the firearm, a machine gun. See Loux v. United States, 389 F.2d 911, 918-919 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 867, 89 S.Ct. 151, 21 L.Ed.2d 135 (1968).

[427 F.2d 544]

An extrajudicial statement made by appellant's co-defendant at the time of his arrest was likewise admissible. The co-defendant who was acquitted took the stand at trial, confirmed the statement in substance, and was interrogated by appellant's counsel. There was no violation of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).

The court's determination that appellant was not entrapped into committing the offenses charged was supported by substantial evidence.

Judgment affirmed.