Amezaga v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Amezaga v. United States

296 F. 915, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3441

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 22, 1924

DocketNo. 4124

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 296 F. 915 (Amezaga v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amezaga v. United States, 296 F. 915, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3441 (5th Cir. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

One of the counts of the indictment in this case charged a violation of the Anti-Narcotic Act (Comp. St. [916]*916§§ 6287g-6287q) by the plaintiffs in error (herein called defendants), having in their possession a stated number of unstamped packages of a described derivative of opium. In the course of the testimony of a witness for the prosecution as to certain tablets found in defendant’s place of business, the witness, over the objection duly made, was permitted to testify that one Hudson, a drug addict, who was not examined as a witness, after biting one of the tablets, stated in the presence of one of the defendants that they were morphine tablets. There was no testimony tending to prove that the defendant who was present acquiesced in the statement of Hudson which was so deposed to. On the contrary, the witness on his cross-examination stated that such defendant denied that statements made by Hudson were true. In the absence of any evidence tending to prove that the defendant who was present acquiesced in the truth of such statement made by Hudson, testimony as to the making of that statement was inadmissible, and the objection to such testimony on the ground that it was hearsay should have been sustained. 2 Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, § 289.

Because of the error mentioned, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with direction that a new trial be granted.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

One of the counts of the indictment in this case charged a violation of the Anti-Narcotic Act (Comp. St. [916]*916§§ 6287g-6287q) by the plaintiffs in error (herein called defendants), having in their possession a stated number of unstamped packages of a described derivative of opium. In the course of the testimony of a witness for the prosecution as to certain tablets found in defendant’s place of business, the witness, over the objection duly made, was permitted to testify that one Hudson, a drug addict, who was not examined as a witness, after biting one of the tablets, stated in the presence of one of the defendants that they were morphine tablets. There was no testimony tending to prove that the defendant who was present acquiesced in the statement of Hudson which was so deposed to. On the contrary, the witness on his cross-examination stated that such defendant denied that statements made by Hudson were true. In the absence of any evidence tending to prove that the defendant who was present acquiesced in the truth of such statement made by Hudson, testimony as to the making of that statement was inadmissible, and the objection to such testimony on the ground that it was hearsay should have been sustained. 2 Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, § 289.

Because of the error mentioned, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with direction that a new trial be granted.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 F. 915, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amezaga-v-united-states-ca5-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack