Philipian v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Philipian v. United States

20 F.2d 532

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJuly 5, 1927

DocketNo. 4867

StatusPublished

This text of 20 F.2d 532 (Philipian v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Philipian v. United States, 20 F.2d 532 (6th Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Prosecution under Harrison Act (U. S. C. S., § 6287g; U. S. Code, tit. 26, § 692). Count 1 plainly charges purchase of narcotics in or from an unstamped package; count 2 is probably intended to charge a sale thereof in or from an unstamped package.

The case must be affirmed. The objection that no venue was proved was not made below. Section 1 of the act, to prohibit dealings in unstamped packages, as amended in 1919, is constitutional. Alston v. U. S., 47 S. Ct. 634, 71 L. Ed.-, opinion filed May 16, 1927. When an indictment does not show that defendant was a physician, it is not necessary that it should challenge the rights peculiar to physicians. The narcotics in the form sold were put in evidence, but not sent up with the record. In one instance there was a package. We must assume that it was unstamped. Its possession would support the inference that defendant had purchased it in that unstamped form; the statutory inference goes at least as far as that. A conviction good on one count will support the sentence. The federal officers had no connection with the search and seizure. There was no request to charge as to the effect of an accomplice’s testimony, nor any exception to the charge on this point.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Prosecution under Harrison Act (U. S. C. S., § 6287g; U. S. Code, tit. 26, § 692). Count 1 plainly charges purchase of narcotics in or from an unstamped package; count 2 is probably intended to charge a sale thereof in or from an unstamped package.

The case must be affirmed. The objection that no venue was proved was not made below. Section 1 of the act, to prohibit dealings in unstamped packages, as amended in 1919, is constitutional. Alston v. U. S., 47 S. Ct. 634, 71 L. Ed.-, opinion filed May 16, 1927. When an indictment does not show that defendant was a physician, it is not necessary that it should challenge the rights peculiar to physicians. The narcotics in the form sold were put in evidence, but not sent up with the record. In one instance there was a package. We must assume that it was unstamped. Its possession would support the inference that defendant had purchased it in that unstamped form; the statutory inference goes at least as far as that. A conviction good on one count will support the sentence. The federal officers had no connection with the search and seizure. There was no request to charge as to the effect of an accomplice’s testimony, nor any exception to the charge on this point.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 F.2d 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philipian-v-united-states-ca6-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack