UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
KARY ROBINSON, 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 affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the denial of a change of venue or continuance, nor plain error regarding sufficiency of evidence.
Robinson was convicted of possession and distribution of heroin. He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for constructive possession and prejudicia…
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 Manifest Miscarriage Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robinson raises two issues in this appeal from his conviction for possession and distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). He contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession of narcotics and he claims that the district court erred in denying his motion for a change of venue or a continuance of the trial date due to prejudicial publicity. Finding no error in the judgment below we affirm.
Robinson’s failure to move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence restricts our review concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to a determination whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice or plain error in the judgment below. United States v. Pitts, 5 Cir. 1970, 428 F. 2d 534. We find neither. Robinson’s claim of prejudicial pretrial publicity is without merit. The facts in the case before us simply do not show any prejudice to Robinson which would necessitate a reversal of the district court’s exercise of sound discretion. Hale v. United States, 435 F. 2d 737, 5 Cir. 1970, cert, denied, 402 U.S. 976, 91 S.Ct. 1680, 29 L.Ed. 142.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. James, 495 F.2d 434 (5th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Hale v. United States, 435 F.2d 737 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Ginsburg v. Richardson, 402 U.S. 976 (U.S. 1971)
- Brown v. Hendrick, 402 U.S. 976 (U.S. 1971)
- United States v. Pitts, 428 F.2d 534 (5th Cir. 1970)
- DOE v. Hyde, 114 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1885)