Charles Felton Bateman v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Charles Felton Bateman v. United States

225 F.2d 91, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4198

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 1955

Docket12382_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 225 F.2d 91 (Charles Felton Bateman v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles Felton Bateman v. United States, 225 F.2d 91, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4198 (6th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of narcotic violations under Title 26 U.S. C.A. § 2553. After verdict, appellant’s able counsel, experienced in criminal law, filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. Thereupon, he filed a notice of appeal, which was not prosecuted but was subsequently dismissed on motion in this court. Thereafter, appellant filed a motion to vacate judgment, and upon denial thereof by the district court, was permitted to appeal in forma pauperis.

On appeal, appellant contends that venue was not established, since it was not clearly shown that a sale or purchase of the drug was made within the District, and that merely finding a person in possession of narcotics does not, under the above mentioned statute, establish venue. The rule is to the contrary. Possession raises a presumption of illegal purchase and, accordingly, of venue. Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413, 48 S.Ct. 373, 72 L.Ed. 632; Anderson v. United States, 6 Cir., 189 F.2d 202. There was no satisfactory explanation made to the jury of appellant’s possession of the narcotics.

The order of the district court denying appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of narcotic violations under Title 26 U.S. C.A. § 2553. After verdict, appellant’s able counsel, experienced in criminal law, filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. Thereupon, he filed a notice of appeal, which was not prosecuted but was subsequently dismissed on motion in this court. Thereafter, appellant filed a motion to vacate judgment, and upon denial thereof by the district court, was permitted to appeal in forma pauperis.

On appeal, appellant contends that venue was not established, since it was not clearly shown that a sale or purchase of the drug was made within the District, and that merely finding a person in possession of narcotics does not, under the above mentioned statute, establish venue. The rule is to the contrary. Possession raises a presumption of illegal purchase and, accordingly, of venue. Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413, 48 S.Ct. 373, 72 L.Ed. 632; Anderson v. United States, 6 Cir., 189 F.2d 202. There was no satisfactory explanation made to the jury of appellant’s possession of the narcotics.

The order of the district court denying appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 F.2d 91, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-felton-bateman-v-united-states-ca6-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack