Guillermo Moreno v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Guillermo Moreno v. United States

391 F.2d 280, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7738

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 1968

Docket25213_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 391 F.2d 280 (Guillermo Moreno 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

Guillermo Moreno v. United States, 391 F.2d 280, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7738 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on six counts under an indictment charging violations of the Federal Narcotics laws, 21 U.S.C. § 174; 26 U.S.C. §§ 4704(a) and 4705(a). He was sentenced to a term of seven years on count one, with like time on the remaining counts to be served concurrently.

The appellant contends that error was committed in the admission of the testimony of a government chemist who had performed a chemical and visual analysis of the capsules possessed and sold by appellant. The chemist testified that the capsules contained heroin. Before so tes *281 tifying the witness was qualified as an expert in the field of analyzing unknown substances to determine their content, he described the tests performed and stated that it was his considered opinion that the capsules contained heroin. The chain of custody of the capsules after they were taken into possession was properly established. They were duly received into evidence. Appellant did not challenge the qualifications of the witness or object to any of the testimony. Appellant now claims that the identification of the heroin was not sufficient because of a lack of evidence that the tests performed were scientifically approved and reliable. The witness described the tests and the results achieved in making his determination that the substance was heroin.

It is our conclusion that no error was committed. Identification of the substance which was alleged to be heroin was a fact which was susceptible of proof by expert testimony of the type offered. The expert was qualified to give his opinion based upon the tests he conducted and the results shown by such tests. See Aeby v. United States, 206 F.2d 296, 299 (5 Cir. 1953).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on six counts under an indictment charging violations of the Federal Narcotics laws, 21 U.S.C. § 174; 26 U.S.C. §§ 4704(a) and 4705(a). He was sentenced to a term of seven years on count one, with like time on the remaining counts to be served concurrently.

The appellant contends that error was committed in the admission of the testimony of a government chemist who had performed a chemical and visual analysis of the capsules possessed and sold by appellant. The chemist testified that the capsules contained heroin. Before so tes *281 tifying the witness was qualified as an expert in the field of analyzing unknown substances to determine their content, he described the tests performed and stated that it was his considered opinion that the capsules contained heroin. The chain of custody of the capsules after they were taken into possession was properly established. They were duly received into evidence. Appellant did not challenge the qualifications of the witness or object to any of the testimony. Appellant now claims that the identification of the heroin was not sufficient because of a lack of evidence that the tests performed were scientifically approved and reliable. The witness described the tests and the results achieved in making his determination that the substance was heroin.

It is our conclusion that no error was committed. Identification of the substance which was alleged to be heroin was a fact which was susceptible of proof by expert testimony of the type offered. The expert was qualified to give his opinion based upon the tests he conducted and the results shown by such tests. See Aeby v. United States, 206 F.2d 296, 299 (5 Cir. 1953).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 F.2d 280, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guillermo-moreno-v-united-states-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack