UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
BOBBY GENE BARFIELD, 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 there was ample evidence to support the conviction and that the district court did not err in admitting the statements.
Bobby Gene Barfield was charged with escape, found guilty by a jury, and sentenced. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the 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 Temporary Insanity Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Bobby Gene Barfield, was charged with the crime of escape in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751. A jury found Barfield guilty, and he was sentenced to a term of five years to run consecutively to other sentences he is serving.
On appeal, Barfield challenges the sufficiency of the evidence offered by the Government. Barfield contends that, in view of his defense of temporary insanity, the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680, we conclude that there was ample evidence from which the jury could conclude that Barfield was guilty of the offense charged.
Barfield also contends that the district court erred in admitting testi mony as to certain voluntary, unsolicited statements made by Barfield to a jailer. The refusal of the trial court to suppress the evidence was not, however, error. See United States v. Garcia, 2 Cir. 1967, 377 F. 2d 321, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 991, 88 S.Ct. 489, 19 L.Ed.2d 484; United States v. Wolff, 7 Cir. 1969, 409 F. 2d 413.
» We have carefully examined Barfield’s other contentions as to alleged errors in limiting the examination of certain witnesses, the refusal to require the attendance of certain witnesses, and the introduction of evidence. We find no error. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1980)
Authorities Cited
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1942)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Arcadio Maldonado Garcia, 377 F.2d 321 (2d Cir. 1967)
- R. A. Holman & Co., Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 389 U.S. 991 (U.S. 1967)
- Holland v. Weakley, 389 U.S. 991 (U.S. 1967)
- United States v. Wolff, 409 F.2d 413 (7th Cir. 1969)