Francis Henderson Robinson v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Francis Henderson Robinson v. United States

395 F.2d 211, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6750

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 1968

Docket25547_1

StatusPublished

This text of 395 F.2d 211 (Francis Henderson Robinson 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

Francis Henderson Robinson v. United States, 395 F.2d 211, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6750 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The principal contention urged by the appellant here is that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence in his trial for violating federal liquor statutes a conviction for larceny which occurred many years previously. The trial court, of course, charged the jury that this evidence could be considered only “in determining the credibility of [Robinson’s] testimony when he took the stand and testified in the trial of the case today; then it has that limited function only”.

We do not need to decide whether the evidence of this previous conviction dealt with a matter so remote as to render it inadmissible if standing alone, because there was further evidence of a conviction in 1960 for a liquor violation, which the jury could consider in conjunction with the earlier conviction as bearing on the credibility of Robinson as a witness in his own behalf.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The principal contention urged by the appellant here is that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence in his trial for violating federal liquor statutes a conviction for larceny which occurred many years previously. The trial court, of course, charged the jury that this evidence could be considered only “in determining the credibility of [Robinson’s] testimony when he took the stand and testified in the trial of the case today; then it has that limited function only”.

We do not need to decide whether the evidence of this previous conviction dealt with a matter so remote as to render it inadmissible if standing alone, because there was further evidence of a conviction in 1960 for a liquor violation, which the jury could consider in conjunction with the earlier conviction as bearing on the credibility of Robinson as a witness in his own behalf.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 F.2d 211, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-henderson-robinson-v-united-states-ca5-1968.