Harold Franklin Smith v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Harold Franklin Smith v. United States

355 F.2d 205

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1966

Docket22156

StatusPublished

This text of 355 F.2d 205 (Harold Franklin Smith 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

Harold Franklin Smith v. United States, 355 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On a trial for illicit liquor operations, the Defendant-Appellant took the stand as a witness. The Government, quite naturally and properly, offered evidence of his prior and somewhat extensive record of convictions. The Court received this for the limited purpose of impeachment. The only error asserted here is that the charge as to credibility of the accused and other witnesses was incorrect. If there was error, and we do not intimate that there necessarily was, it was at most a slight technical imperfection. When considered in the light of the charge as a whole, the jury could not possibly have been confused or misdirected by these instructions and no prejudicial harm resulted.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

On a trial for illicit liquor operations, the Defendant-Appellant took the stand as a witness. The Government, quite naturally and properly, offered evidence of his prior and somewhat extensive record of convictions. The Court received this for the limited purpose of impeachment. The only error asserted here is that the charge as to credibility of the accused and other witnesses was incorrect. If there was error, and we do not intimate that there necessarily was, it was at most a slight technical imperfection. When considered in the light of the charge as a whole, the jury could not possibly have been confused or misdirected by these instructions and no prejudicial harm resulted.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 F.2d 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-franklin-smith-v-united-states-ca5-1966.