JAMES A. HALLMAN, 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 there was sufficient evidence of possession of narcotics to support the conviction.
Police found narcotics in a shoe near the appellant and in a ceiling fixture in a room where appellant was present and allegedly admitted ownership. 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 Possession Of Narcotics cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of violation of the narcotics laws.1 On these appeals he urges, among other things, that there was insufficient evidence of his possession of the narcotics.
The facts disclose that the police officers entered a room in certain premises in the District of Columbia, pursuant to a search warrant, and found appellant sitting on a bed with two addicts. The officers, in their search, found narcotics in a ceiling light fixture and in a shoe belonging to appellant, the shoe being located “directly beneath the [appellant], who was seated on the bed there.” The arresting officers testified that appellant stated “that everything in the room was his, that all the narcotics and capsules were his,” and one of the officers testified that appellant admitted that the room was his. Appellant, who took the stand, admitted the search and the finding of the narcotics in the ceiling light fixture, and stated that the officers picked up an envelope near his shoes. He denied that he made any admissions that he owned the narcotics and, while he denied paying rent for the room or possessing the key to it, he admitted staying in the room “maybe two days a week or four days a week; sometimes one day,” and that on the day of the search he had been there since early in the morning. The persons in the room with him were not called as witnesses; nor was their absence accounted for. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the Government, we think there was ample evidence, if believed by the jury—as it apparently was—to show possession. We have examined the other points ably urged on us by counsel appointed by this court for appellant, and find no -error affecting substantial rights.
Appeal No. 17,119 is an appeal allowed by this Court from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Appeal No. 17,303 is a direct appeal from his conviction, allowed by this court.
Both judgments must be and are
Affirmed.
. 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) (1958); 21 U.S.C. § 174 (1958).