UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ARTHUR ALLEN SHOCKLEY, 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 admission of coconspirator declarations was proper, jury instructions were not prejudicial, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
Shockley was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture and dispense methamphetamine. He appealed, arguing that coconspirator statements were admitted bef…
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 Proof Of Conspiracy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Shockley appeals from his conviction for conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) to manufacture and to dispense methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(q), 360a.
He contends that the declarations of a coconspirator were admitted before independent evidence had been received tending to prove the existence of the conspiracy. The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence because there was ample proof of the existence of the conspiracy before the challenged statements were offered.
He also argues that the court erred in certain of its instructions to the jury. We have examined the challenged instructions in context, and we have concluded that, taken as a whole, there was no prejudicial error. Indeed, some of the instructions concerning Shockley’s participation in the conspiracy were more favorable to him than the law requires. (See, e. g., White v. United States (9th Cir. 1968) 394 F. 2d 49, 54; Garbo v. United States (9th Cir. 1963) 314 F. 2d 718, 735-736, cert. denied Sica v. United States, (1964) 377 U.S. 953, 84 S.Ct. 1626, 12 L.Ed.2d 498).
We have examined the record to ascertain the merit of his charge that the district court improperly commented during the trial. We cannot say that the court’s comments were prejudicial to Shockley.
Finally, we reject Shockley’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdict. (See United States v. Nelson (9th Cir. 1969) 419 F. 2d 1237.)
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1963)
- Goldberg v. United States, 377 U.S. 953 (U.S. 1964)
- United States v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Marder v. Massachusetts, 377 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1964)
- White v. United States, 394 F.2d 49 (9th Cir. 1968)