James Albert Driver v. United States

Fifth Circuit

James Albert Driver v. United States

441 F.2d 276, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10891

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 1971

Docket24569

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 441 F.2d 276 (James Albert Driver 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

James Albert Driver v. United States, 441 F.2d 276, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10891 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

There can be no reasonable doubt concerning the substantiality of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Driver was guilty of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312; we have none, and the jury had none; in fact, that issue was not raised on appeal. The only material point urged as error is the denial of the District Court to declare a mistrial because the Government introduced evidence of a prior criminal conviction of Driver although he had not put his character in issue. We affirm.

Driver’s accomplice Ort was called as a Government’s witness and testified that Driver came to Ort’s house with a car and asked Ort to accompany him from Alabama to Florida and to sell the car for him. When questioned about this Ort said:

“A1 asked me to sell this car for him that he had gotten, the reason he said he wanted me to sell it is that he had a prior criminal record on cars and * * *»

Driver’s motion for a mistrial was denied. The Court instructed the jury that they must disregard any suggestion, implication or reference to possible previous criminal activities of Driver. “The admonition to the jury by the trial judge was sufficient to expunge any possible prejudice to the defendant and as such, the error [if indeed there was error] was harmless only.” Russell v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 237, 239.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

There can be no reasonable doubt concerning the substantiality of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Driver was guilty of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312; we have none, and the jury had none; in fact, that issue was not raised on appeal. The only material point urged as error is the denial of the District Court to declare a mistrial because the Government introduced evidence of a prior criminal conviction of Driver although he had not put his character in issue. We affirm.

Driver’s accomplice Ort was called as a Government’s witness and testified that Driver came to Ort’s house with a car and asked Ort to accompany him from Alabama to Florida and to sell the car for him. When questioned about this Ort said:

“A1 asked me to sell this car for him that he had gotten, the reason he said he wanted me to sell it is that he had a prior criminal record on cars and * * *»

Driver’s motion for a mistrial was denied. The Court instructed the jury that they must disregard any suggestion, implication or reference to possible previous criminal activities of Driver. “The admonition to the jury by the trial judge was sufficient to expunge any possible prejudice to the defendant and as such, the error [if indeed there was error] was harmless only.” Russell v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 237, 239.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F.2d 276, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-albert-driver-v-united-states-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack