Lawrence Winston Harrington v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Lawrence Winston Harrington v. United States

391 F.2d 604, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7665

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 18, 1968

Docket24761

StatusPublished

This text of 391 F.2d 604 (Lawrence Winston Harrington 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

Lawrence Winston Harrington v. United States, 391 F.2d 604, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7665 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Harrington appeals from his conviction for selling amphetamine tablets without a prescription in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 353(b) (1). He asserts that the District Court erred in its charge on the defense of entrapment by failing to “inform the jury as to the requisite burdens of proof and the quantum necessary to sustain each.” No objection was made to the charge in the District Court and appellant concedes that the charge was in conformity with that approved in our decisions of Chapman v. United States, 5 Cir. 1959, 271 F.2d 593, cert. denied, 362 U.S. 928, 80 S.Ct. 755, 4 L.Ed. 2d 746 and Kivette v. United States, 5 Cir. 1956, 230 F.2d 749, cert. denied, 355 U.S. 935, 78 S.Ct. 419, 2 L.Ed.2d 418. In these circumstances the charge is certainly not plain error, nor was it error at all. Harrington also complains that he was prejudiced by the use of an illustration of an officer pretending to be an addict for purposes of disguise in the entrapment charge. However, the court made it patently clear to the jury that this was solely an illustration, and when viewed in light of the charge as a whole it was in no way prejudicial to appellant.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Harrington appeals from his conviction for selling amphetamine tablets without a prescription in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 353(b) (1). He asserts that the District Court erred in its charge on the defense of entrapment by failing to “inform the jury as to the requisite burdens of proof and the quantum necessary to sustain each.” No objection was made to the charge in the District Court and appellant concedes that the charge was in conformity with that approved in our decisions of Chapman v. United States, 5 Cir. 1959, 271 F.2d 593, cert. denied, 362 U.S. 928, 80 S.Ct. 755, 4 L.Ed. 2d 746 and Kivette v. United States, 5 Cir. 1956, 230 F.2d 749, cert. denied, 355 U.S. 935, 78 S.Ct. 419, 2 L.Ed.2d 418. In these circumstances the charge is certainly not plain error, nor was it error at all. Harrington also complains that he was prejudiced by the use of an illustration of an officer pretending to be an addict for purposes of disguise in the entrapment charge. However, the court made it patently clear to the jury that this was solely an illustration, and when viewed in light of the charge as a whole it was in no way prejudicial to appellant.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 F.2d 604, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-winston-harrington-v-united-states-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack