UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM JIMMY ROLAND, 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 a potentially prejudicial remark by an agent was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Defendant was observed working at an illegal distillery and apprehended. An arresting agent remarked that he thought the defendant was out of the liqu…
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 Admissibility Of Character Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Roland appeals from a conviction for violating 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 5601(a) (4), 5601(a) (1) and 5604(a) (l).1 He maintains that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his character and reputation. We affirm.
On several occasions over a three week period Roland was observed working around an illegal distillery by federal agents. He was apprehended at the site. One of the arresting agents testified that after giving Roland the Miranda warnings he remarked that he thought Roland had gotten out of the liquor business. Roland moved for a mistrial on the ground that the statement was a comment upon his character. The motion was denied.
As Roland points out, the prosecution may not offer evidence concerning a defendant’s character or reputation during its case-in-chief. Michelson v. United States, 1948, 335 U.S. 469, 475, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168. The remark, volunteered by the witness, however, was ambiguous. It did not mention any past crimes nor did it necessarily refer to any illegal activity. If, however, the statement did have an impermissible connotation, it is uncontradicted that three agents observed Roland working at the distillery intermittently over a period of three weeks and he was apprehended at the scene. An error that might be prejudicial in a close case does not require reversal when evidence of the defendant’s guilt is strong. United States v. Lipscomb, 5 Cir. 1970, 435 F. 2d 795, 803, cert. denied 401 U.S. 980, 91 S.Ct. 213, 28 L.Ed.2d 331; United States v. Panczko, 7 Cir. 1970, 429 F. 2d 683, 688.
Considering the evidence as a whole, we are “sure that the error did not influence the jury.” Kotteakos v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 750, 764, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248, 90 L.Ed. 1557. Fed.R.Crim. P. 52(a).
The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
. 26 U.S.C.A. § 5601
(a) Offenses. — Any person who—
(1) Unregistered stills. — has in his possession or custody, or under his control, any still or distilling apparatus set up which is not registered, as required by section 5179(a)
* 'Jfi * %
(4) Failure or refusal of distiller or rectifier to give bond. — carries on the business of a distiller or rectifier without having given bond as required by law; * * *
26 U.S.C.A. § 5604
(a) General. — Any person who shall—
(1) transport, possess, buy, sell, or transfer any distilled spirits, required to be stamped under the provisions of section 5205(a) (2), unless the immediate container thereof has affixed thereto a stamp as required by such section; * * *
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978)
-
United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
United States v. Bosch, 584 F.2d 1113 (1st Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1948)
- United States v. Lipscomb, 435 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Lipscomb v. United States, 401 U.S. 980 (U.S. 1971)
- Salvi v. New Jersey, 401 U.S. 980 (U.S. 1971)
- United States v. Panczko, 429 F.2d 683 (7th Cir. 1970)