JACOB HARPER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1967-10-02
No. 24073
Before TUTTLE, BELL and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
383 F.2d 795 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1967) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the defendant waived the venue objection by not raising it before trial and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of violating federal statutes proscribing the unlicensed production of spirituous liquors. The indictment alleged the still wa…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of violating 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 5180 and 5681(c), and 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 5601(a) (8) and 5222 which proscribe, respectively, the non-licensed working and producing of spirituous liquors. We find his appeal to be without merit.

The question of venue was waived. The question turned on the location of the still. The indictment alleged that it was in Coffee County which is in in the Waycross Division of the Southern District of Georgia. No venue question was asserted until after the close of the evidence. Appellant then claimed the still was in an adjoining county which was in the Brunswick Division of the court. The right to be tried in a particular division of a district is a personal and technical right and may be waived. Lafoon v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 250 F. 2d 958; Cagnina v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 223 F. 2d 149; and Silverberg v. United States, 5 Cir., 1925, 4 F. 2d 908. These cases stand for the proposition that a waiver ensues where the objection to venue is not lodged prior to trial.

The evidence was sufficient to warrant the conviction. There was no prejudicial error in the statements made by the court during the conduct of the trial.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw