Rucker v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Rucker v. United States

206 F.2d 464, 92 U.S. App. D.C. 336, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2769

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 1953

Docket11620_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 206 F.2d 464 (Rucker 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

Rucker v. United States, 206 F.2d 464, 92 U.S. App. D.C. 336, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2769 (D.C. Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction and sentence for illegal sale of heroin in violation of I.R.C. § 2554(a), 26’ U.S.C.A. § 2554(a). Two questions are presented.

(1) It is contended that the evidence established entrapment, as a matter of law, by the arresting officer and his associate, an informer; therefore, that the court should have directed acquittal. However, the court treated the evidence as presenting a question of fact, and submitted it to the jury with appropriate instructions. An examination of the evidence convinces-us that it did raise a question of fact; therefore the court was correct in submitting the question to the jury, 1 and its verdict concludes the matter.

(2) In the course of his charge to the jury the judge made a mis-statement as to one phase of the defendant’s testimony. It is contended that this constitutes reversible error. We think not in view of the circumstances, for the court instructed the jury that his reference to the evidence’ was based only on his recollection, and that they, the jury, were the sole judges of the• evidence and their recollection should control. Defendant’s counsel made no effort to correct the court’s mis-statement either at the time it was made or at the conclusion of the charge. Had that been done it is fair to assume that a timely correction would have been made by the judge. It is *465 important in such circumstances that counsel act in time to give the judge an opportunity to correct an error made in the course of his charge to the jury. MacIllrath v. United States, 1951, 88 U.S.App. D.C. 270, 188 F.2d 1009; Villaroman v. United States, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 240, 184 F.2d 261, 21 A.L.R.2d 1074. See also Rule 30, Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A., which provides that “No party may assign as error any portion of the charge * * * unless he objects thereto before the jury retires * * Moreover, it would seem unreasonable to conclude that any harm was done, in view of the definite statement by tlie court that the jury’s recollection of the evidence must control in their deliberations and conclusions.

We find no reversible error.

Affirmed.

1

. Sorrells v. United States, 1932, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413; United States v. Lemons, 7 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 396; Cratty v. United States, 1947, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 236, 163 F.2d 844.

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 and sentence for illegal sale of heroin in violation of I.R.C. § 2554(a), 26’ U.S.C.A. § 2554(a). Two questions are presented.

(1) It is contended that the evidence established entrapment, as a matter of law, by the arresting officer and his associate, an informer; therefore, that the court should have directed acquittal. However, the court treated the evidence as presenting a question of fact, and submitted it to the jury with appropriate instructions. An examination of the evidence convinces-us that it did raise a question of fact; therefore the court was correct in submitting the question to the jury, 1 and its verdict concludes the matter.

(2) In the course of his charge to the jury the judge made a mis-statement as to one phase of the defendant’s testimony. It is contended that this constitutes reversible error. We think not in view of the circumstances, for the court instructed the jury that his reference to the evidence’ was based only on his recollection, and that they, the jury, were the sole judges of the• evidence and their recollection should control. Defendant’s counsel made no effort to correct the court’s mis-statement either at the time it was made or at the conclusion of the charge. Had that been done it is fair to assume that a timely correction would have been made by the judge. It is *465 important in such circumstances that counsel act in time to give the judge an opportunity to correct an error made in the course of his charge to the jury. MacIllrath v. United States, 1951, 88 U.S.App. D.C. 270, 188 F.2d 1009; Villaroman v. United States, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 240, 184 F.2d 261, 21 A.L.R.2d 1074. See also Rule 30, Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A., which provides that “No party may assign as error any portion of the charge * * * unless he objects thereto before the jury retires * * Moreover, it would seem unreasonable to conclude that any harm was done, in view of the definite statement by tlie court that the jury’s recollection of the evidence must control in their deliberations and conclusions.

We find no reversible error.

Affirmed.

1

. Sorrells v. United States, 1932, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413; United States v. Lemons, 7 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 396; Cratty v. United States, 1947, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 236, 163 F.2d 844.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 F.2d 464, 92 U.S. App. D.C. 336, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rucker-v-united-states-cadc-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack