WILLIS SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant's grounds for appeal were procedurally barred due to failure to object or move for suppression at trial.
Appellant was convicted of violating the Harrison Narcotics Act. He appealed, citing prejudicial comments by the judge, illegally obtained evidence, a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudicial Remarks By Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal from conviction of appellant of violation of the Harrison Narcotics Act, 26 U.S.C.A. § 4744, presents no ground on which this Court can base a reversal. Complaining first that the trial court commented, before the jury was sworn, and, apparently from reading the record, even before the jury was struck by the parties, about narcotics cases in such a way as would prejudice appellant, the accused fails to show that the court’s criticized answer to his motion was made within the hearing of any person who was later chosen and sworn as a juror in the case.
Seeking a reversal of the conviction on the second ground that evidence in the form of the marijuana was illegally obtained and should not, therefore, have been admitted, the appellant is met by the insuperable barrier of having failed either before or during the trial to move for the suppression of this evidence, Rule 41(e), F.R.Crim.P., 18 U. S.C.A., to object to its reception or request that the testimony as to it be stricken.
The third ground, an alleged failure of the trial court to charge adequately as to the meaning of “possession,” is equally unavailable because, though twice given the opportunity to request added instructions and to object to instructions given, appellant’s trial counsel failed to take the required steps to enable the judge to consider the correctness of his charge. Rule 30, F.R.Crim.P.; Finley v. United States, 5 Cir., 246 F. 2d 604.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. United States, 265 F.2d 14 (5th Cir. 1959)
Authorities Cited
- Grovene James Finley v. United States, 246 F.2d 604 (5th Cir. 1957)