Jerome E. Doelle v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Jerome E. Doelle v. United States

309 F.2d 396

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 7, 1962

Docket19692

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 309 F.2d 396 (Jerome E. Doelle 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

Jerome E. Doelle v. United States, 309 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction for violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, Title 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2312 and 2313, entered on a jury verdict.

The listing of a number of aliases in the indictment coupled with a complete absence of proof of any use of the aliases, while not to be commended, was not prejudicial error under the circumstances of this case in view of the admonishments of the jury by the court that no inference adverse to appellant was to be drawn therefrom. The aliases consisted of combinations of the name of appellant plus one nickname in lieu of his given name. The cases cited by appellant to the contrary are inapposite, although United States v. Monroe, 2 Cir., 1947, 164 F.2d 471 teaches that any prejudice arising from the use of an alias, as there, may be cured by instruction.

The record does not bear out the claim of prejudicial argument on the part of the prosecutor. Furthermore, there was no objection to the argument. Sikes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1960, 279 F.2d 561.

The denial by the court of the request of appellant for a handwriting expert to testify in his behalf was not an abuse of discretion in view of the limitation placed on the evidence sought to be attacked through the use of the expert. This too was a discretionary matter for the trial judge. Reistroffer v. United States, 8 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 379.

Appellant lost his case before the jury. The verdict was amply supported. No prejudicial error appearing we must and do

Affirm.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction for violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, Title 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2312 and 2313, entered on a jury verdict.

The listing of a number of aliases in the indictment coupled with a complete absence of proof of any use of the aliases, while not to be commended, was not prejudicial error under the circumstances of this case in view of the admonishments of the jury by the court that no inference adverse to appellant was to be drawn therefrom. The aliases consisted of combinations of the name of appellant plus one nickname in lieu of his given name. The cases cited by appellant to the contrary are inapposite, although United States v. Monroe, 2 Cir., 1947, 164 F.2d 471 teaches that any prejudice arising from the use of an alias, as there, may be cured by instruction.

The record does not bear out the claim of prejudicial argument on the part of the prosecutor. Furthermore, there was no objection to the argument. Sikes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1960, 279 F.2d 561.

The denial by the court of the request of appellant for a handwriting expert to testify in his behalf was not an abuse of discretion in view of the limitation placed on the evidence sought to be attacked through the use of the expert. This too was a discretionary matter for the trial judge. Reistroffer v. United States, 8 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 379.

Appellant lost his case before the jury. The verdict was amply supported. No prejudicial error appearing we must and do

Affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 F.2d 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerome-e-doelle-v-united-states-ca5-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack