Elza P. Padgett and Morris Miller v. United States

283 F.2d 244
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedNovember 17, 1960
Docket18193
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 283 F.2d 244 (Elza P. Padgett and Morris Miller 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
Elza P. Padgett and Morris Miller v. United States, 283 F.2d 244 (5th Cir. 1960).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants and others were convicted on a charge of conspiring to violate the laws relating to the unlawful making and selling of non-tax-paid liquor.

Both appellants assert that error was committed in receiving in evidence testimony as to statements said to have been made by a member of the conspiracy at times and places when and where the appellants were not present. Delaney v. United States, 263 U.S. 586, 44 S.Ct. 206, 68 L.Ed. 462, requires a holding that no error was committed.

The appellant Miller asserts that the evidence showed that there were four stills and a separate conspiracy with respect to the operation of each of them resulting, as to him, in a variance between the indictment and the proof. We find no necessity for a recital of the evidence that was adduced at the trial. The case calls for an application of the statement that,

“Under the evidence in this case, we think that it was for the jury to say whether there was any conspiracy and if so, whether one or more than one. If more than one conspiracy was proved, of at least one of which the appellant was guilty, it is clear that there was no variance affecting his substantial rights.” Jol-ley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d 83, 88.

No error or variance which affects the substantial rights of the appellants being shown, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Harper
620 P.2d 1087 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 1980)
Julian Ralph Robinson v. United States
333 F.2d 950 (Fifth Circuit, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 F.2d 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elza-p-padgett-and-morris-miller-v-united-states-ca5-1960.