J. C. Wade v. United States

Fifth Circuit

J. C. Wade v. United States

344 F.2d 1016

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 1965

Docket20979

StatusPublished

This text of 344 F.2d 1016 (J. C. Wade 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

J. C. Wade v. United States, 344 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence on an indictment charging the use of the mails to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341. Error is predicated on the admission of answers to certain questions on cross-examination of the defendant, duly objected to on the ground that they were not admissible for the purpose of proving intent. We agree they were not admissible to show intent, but we think they were proper preliminary questions to a further inquiry, had they been answered in the affirmative, which would have tested the truth of the testimony of the defendant that he had acted in good faith and were admissible as primary evidence. Error is also predicated upon another question propounded on cross-examination of the defendant. The court sustained an objection to that question and instructed the jury to disregard it. The defendant was represented by counsel of his own choice, who did not move for a mistrial. Hence, he may not here urge that the instruction of the trial court did not cure the harm resulting from the question ; and we do not think we should notice the alleged error of our own motion.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence on an indictment charging the use of the mails to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341. Error is predicated on the admission of answers to certain questions on cross-examination of the defendant, duly objected to on the ground that they were not admissible for the purpose of proving intent. We agree they were not admissible to show intent, but we think they were proper preliminary questions to a further inquiry, had they been answered in the affirmative, which would have tested the truth of the testimony of the defendant that he had acted in good faith and were admissible as primary evidence. Error is also predicated upon another question propounded on cross-examination of the defendant. The court sustained an objection to that question and instructed the jury to disregard it. The defendant was represented by counsel of his own choice, who did not move for a mistrial. Hence, he may not here urge that the instruction of the trial court did not cure the harm resulting from the question ; and we do not think we should notice the alleged error of our own motion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 F.2d 1016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-c-wade-v-united-states-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack