Ernest A. Scott v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Ernest A. Scott v. United States

317 F.2d 908, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 208, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5424

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1963

Docket17515_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 317 F.2d 908 (Ernest A. Scott 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

Ernest A. Scott v. United States, 317 F.2d 908, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 208, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5424 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appellant was acquitted on a charge of purchase, sale or distribution of a narcotic drug, but was found guilty by a jury of facilitating concealment of narcotics. It is now contended for the first time that the trial judge should not have admitted in evidence a cigarette package dropped by the accused as an officer approached. The package contained five gelatin capsules of heroin. No motion to suppress was made and no objection to the receipt of the evidence was voiced during the trial. Able counsel appointed by this court further argues that the Government’s expert chemist, whose qualifications were conceded at trial, should not have been permitted, despite the absence of objection, to testify that opium is not grown in the United States.

In Fuller v. United States, 53 App.D.C. 88, 91, 288 F. 442, 445 (1923), we said: “The general and obviously salutary rule is that objection to the admissibility of evidence should be made at the time it is offered and the grounds therefor stated.” Over the intervening years, “We frequently have pointed out that objections to the receipt of evidence should be made in the trial court.” White v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 238, 314 F.2d 243 (1962). Appellant would have us say notwithstanding the *909 state of the record before us, that his conviction should be reversed.

On the contrary, we are satisfied there was no error affecting substantial rights. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appellant was acquitted on a charge of purchase, sale or distribution of a narcotic drug, but was found guilty by a jury of facilitating concealment of narcotics. It is now contended for the first time that the trial judge should not have admitted in evidence a cigarette package dropped by the accused as an officer approached. The package contained five gelatin capsules of heroin. No motion to suppress was made and no objection to the receipt of the evidence was voiced during the trial. Able counsel appointed by this court further argues that the Government’s expert chemist, whose qualifications were conceded at trial, should not have been permitted, despite the absence of objection, to testify that opium is not grown in the United States.

In Fuller v. United States, 53 App.D.C. 88, 91, 288 F. 442, 445 (1923), we said: “The general and obviously salutary rule is that objection to the admissibility of evidence should be made at the time it is offered and the grounds therefor stated.” Over the intervening years, “We frequently have pointed out that objections to the receipt of evidence should be made in the trial court.” White v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 238, 314 F.2d 243 (1962). Appellant would have us say notwithstanding the *909 state of the record before us, that his conviction should be reversed.

On the contrary, we are satisfied there was no error affecting substantial rights. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 F.2d 908, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 208, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-a-scott-v-united-states-cadc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack