Hubert Vernon Hardin v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Hubert Vernon Hardin v. United States

340 F.2d 711

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 1965

Docket21021

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 340 F.2d 711 (Hubert Vernon Hardin 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

Hubert Vernon Hardin v. United States, 340 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant claims that his conviction for conspiracy to enter a building with intent to steal money insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should be reversed for failure of the trial court to grant in its entirety his motion to suppress evidence obtained from him by Mexican officers at the time of his arrest in Mexico, and to sustain an objection to the charge to the jury. While the trial court was justified in overruling the motion to suppress for the reasons set out in connection with this same search in the opinion affirming the conviction of this defendant on the substantive offense, Hardin v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 324 F.2d 553, the appellant’s contention here is without merit for the further reason that even though the motion to suppress was overruled after a hearing in the absence of the jury, no evidence of the fruits of the search was ever offered in the jury’s presence. The court’s charge was correct and fair, and there is not sufficient merit in the objection to it to warrant discussion.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant claims that his conviction for conspiracy to enter a building with intent to steal money insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should be reversed for failure of the trial court to grant in its entirety his motion to suppress evidence obtained from him by Mexican officers at the time of his arrest in Mexico, and to sustain an objection to the charge to the jury. While the trial court was justified in overruling the motion to suppress for the reasons set out in connection with this same search in the opinion affirming the conviction of this defendant on the substantive offense, Hardin v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 324 F.2d 553, the appellant’s contention here is without merit for the further reason that even though the motion to suppress was overruled after a hearing in the absence of the jury, no evidence of the fruits of the search was ever offered in the jury’s presence. The court’s charge was correct and fair, and there is not sufficient merit in the objection to it to warrant discussion.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 F.2d 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubert-vernon-hardin-v-united-states-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack