Roger Harris v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Roger Harris v. United States

331 F.2d 95, 118 U.S. App. D.C. 21, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6024

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 1963

Docket17153_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 331 F.2d 95 (Roger Harris v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roger Harris v. United States, 331 F.2d 95, 118 U.S. App. D.C. 21, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6024 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of bribery. It appears that two police officers called at appellant’s apartment on a routine investigation of suspected illegal activity, i. e., gambling. Prior to their second call they advised their commanding of-fieer that they suspected, due to some conversation had with appellant upon the first call, that appellant might attempt a bribery. They left with the commanding officer all the money they had in their pockets. When they reached appellant’s apartment they were admitted and, having entered, walked around and looked over the room. Appellant testified that one of the officers picked up a cigar and' said: “Well, I can’t afford to smoke-these. I can’t afford two for a quarter.” Appellant then gave the officers six dollars apiece. He testified: “I said, ‘You-all get you some cigars.’ ” The officers placed him under arrest, returned to headquarters, and gave their commanding officer the twelve dollars.

Upon the trial appellant defended upon the ground of entrapment and requested an instruction on that theory. The trial judge was of opinion that the-evidence was not sufficient to raise an issue as to entrapment, and declined to-give the instruction. We agree with the trial court.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of bribery. It appears that two police officers called at appellant’s apartment on a routine investigation of suspected illegal activity, i. e., gambling. Prior to their second call they advised their commanding of-fieer that they suspected, due to some conversation had with appellant upon the first call, that appellant might attempt a bribery. They left with the commanding officer all the money they had in their pockets. When they reached appellant’s apartment they were admitted and, having entered, walked around and looked over the room. Appellant testified that one of the officers picked up a cigar and' said: “Well, I can’t afford to smoke-these. I can’t afford two for a quarter.” Appellant then gave the officers six dollars apiece. He testified: “I said, ‘You-all get you some cigars.’ ” The officers placed him under arrest, returned to headquarters, and gave their commanding officer the twelve dollars.

Upon the trial appellant defended upon the ground of entrapment and requested an instruction on that theory. The trial judge was of opinion that the-evidence was not sufficient to raise an issue as to entrapment, and declined to-give the instruction. We agree with the trial court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 F.2d 95, 118 U.S. App. D.C. 21, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roger-harris-v-united-states-cadc-1963.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack