Charlotte J. Belt v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Charlotte J. Belt v. United States

317 F.2d 157, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 93, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5819

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 1963

Docket17431

StatusPublished

This text of 317 F.2d 157 (Charlotte J. Belt v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charlotte J. Belt v. United States, 317 F.2d 157, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 93, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5819 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted on three counts of an indictment charging violations of the narcotics laws, 26 U.S.C. §§ 4704(a), 4705(a), and 21 U.S.C. § 174 (1958). Appellant’s able court-appointed counsel (who was not of counsel at the trial) has made three allegations of error. Two of them relate to questions posed to the court by the jury after it had begun its deliberations. Counsel urges that the answers given by the judge were prejudicial to the accused. We do not consider them so, at least in any sense of which the accused can properly complain. The answers were thoughtfully and carefully made, after consultation with counsel at the bench, 1 and in our view cannot be said to constitute reversible error. The third contention relates to a portion of the court’s charge which is alleged to be inaccurate and misleading. We do not find it so. No objection was made at the trial, and the charge as a whole seems fair and clear. We find no error affecting substantial rights.

Affirmed.

1

. Defense counsel objected to each answer made by the judge. We think the objections were properly overruled.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted on three counts of an indictment charging violations of the narcotics laws, 26 U.S.C. §§ 4704(a), 4705(a), and 21 U.S.C. § 174 (1958). Appellant’s able court-appointed counsel (who was not of counsel at the trial) has made three allegations of error. Two of them relate to questions posed to the court by the jury after it had begun its deliberations. Counsel urges that the answers given by the judge were prejudicial to the accused. We do not consider them so, at least in any sense of which the accused can properly complain. The answers were thoughtfully and carefully made, after consultation with counsel at the bench, 1 and in our view cannot be said to constitute reversible error. The third contention relates to a portion of the court’s charge which is alleged to be inaccurate and misleading. We do not find it so. No objection was made at the trial, and the charge as a whole seems fair and clear. We find no error affecting substantial rights.

Affirmed.

1

. Defense counsel objected to each answer made by the judge. We think the objections were properly overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 F.2d 157, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 93, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charlotte-j-belt-v-united-states-cadc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack