Frederic Pittman v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Frederic Pittman v. United States

368 F.2d 560

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 1966

Docket20530

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 368 F.2d 560 (Frederic Pittman v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frederic Pittman v. United States, 368 F.2d 560 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal the defendant’s assignments of error are devoted exclusively to instructions given by the Court.

Appellant urges that eleven of the twelve challenged instructions are incorrect. But at most they contain some surplusage and, in a few instances, inapt words. Imprecision of statement and inexactness of language in instructions is not reversible error, unless the jury is *561 misled. Here no such conclusion is indicated.

We agree with appellant that the remaining instruction, concerning the matter of punishment, was over-broad. The crimes were such that the jury was in no way concerned with the penalty that attached [Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 68 S.Ct. 880, 92 L.Ed. 1055 (1948)] and the part of the Court’s instruction to that effect was proper; the further statement concerning the Court’s broad powers over the defendant in the event of his guilt was not. See Pope v. United States, 298 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1962).

The court, in an instruction which immediately followed the erroneous comment, remarked that the matter was one exclusively for the court to decide and admonished the jury to disregard “possible punishment” in arriving at its decision. The appellant does not contend that the evidence was insufficient to support conviction, and we conclude, under the circumstances, that the erroneous instruction was neutralized.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal the defendant’s assignments of error are devoted exclusively to instructions given by the Court.

Appellant urges that eleven of the twelve challenged instructions are incorrect. But at most they contain some surplusage and, in a few instances, inapt words. Imprecision of statement and inexactness of language in instructions is not reversible error, unless the jury is *561 misled. Here no such conclusion is indicated.

We agree with appellant that the remaining instruction, concerning the matter of punishment, was over-broad. The crimes were such that the jury was in no way concerned with the penalty that attached [Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 68 S.Ct. 880, 92 L.Ed. 1055 (1948)] and the part of the Court’s instruction to that effect was proper; the further statement concerning the Court’s broad powers over the defendant in the event of his guilt was not. See Pope v. United States, 298 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1962).

The court, in an instruction which immediately followed the erroneous comment, remarked that the matter was one exclusively for the court to decide and admonished the jury to disregard “possible punishment” in arriving at its decision. The appellant does not contend that the evidence was insufficient to support conviction, and we conclude, under the circumstances, that the erroneous instruction was neutralized.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 F.2d 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederic-pittman-v-united-states-ca9-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack