UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
BYFORD LEE HURST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the court reporter to read a prosecution witness's testimony to the jury.
The defendant was convicted of unlawful interception of mail. During deliberations, the jury requested to have the testimony of a prosecution witness …
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 Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from a conviction of violating Title 18 U.S.C.A. Section 1702, unlawful interception of mail. The appeal asserts the sole claim that the district court committed prejudicial error in permitting the court reporter, after a request from the jury, to read the testimony of a prosecution witness to the jury.
The jury had been deliberating some two hours when the request was made. All of the testimony of the particular witness was read to the jury. The testimony was directed to appellant’s role in the transaction which formed the subject matter of the crime charged vis a vis the role of a co-defendant and their joint activity. His testimony rounded out the factual picture in that it shows that he cashed the check for appellant which was taken from the mail, and after appellant had endorsed it. Appellant’s defense was that he had nothing to do with the interception of the check.
We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in permitting the reading of the testimony of this witness to the jury under the circumstances here. Sears v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 343 F. 2d 139; Easley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 261 F. 2d 276. See also Pinckney v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 352 F. 2d 69, in which we upheld a district court’s refusal to allow testimony to be read at the jury’s request.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Easley v. United States, 261 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Pinckney v. United States, 352 F.2d 69 (5th Cir. 1965)