Rudolph Henderson v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Rudolph Henderson v. United States

402 F.2d 755

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 6, 1968

Docket25741_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 402 F.2d 755 (Rudolph Henderson 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

Rudolph Henderson v. United States, 402 F.2d 755 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Upon careful consideration of the record, we conclude that there was ample evidence to warrant submission of the issue of guilt of this appellant to the jury. There was sufficient evidence of Henderson’s dominion over the disputed alcoholic beverages to support the jury’s finding that he was guilty of the unlawful possession forbidden by Section 5604(a) (1) and Section 5205(a) (2), 26 U.S.C.A.

We also conclude that the cross examination of the defendant, who took the stand, relating to prior convictions was neither too broad nor did it relate to convictions too far removed in point of time. See Beaudine v. United States (5 Cir., 1966), 368 F.2d 417, 421, and Roberson v. United States (5 Cir., 1957), 249 F.2d 737. Also as to the breadth of the inquiry, see McCormick, Evidence, Section 43, at 92-93 (1954). The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Upon careful consideration of the record, we conclude that there was ample evidence to warrant submission of the issue of guilt of this appellant to the jury. There was sufficient evidence of Henderson’s dominion over the disputed alcoholic beverages to support the jury’s finding that he was guilty of the unlawful possession forbidden by Section 5604(a) (1) and Section 5205(a) (2), 26 U.S.C.A.

We also conclude that the cross examination of the defendant, who took the stand, relating to prior convictions was neither too broad nor did it relate to convictions too far removed in point of time. See Beaudine v. United States (5 Cir., 1966), 368 F.2d 417, 421, and Roberson v. United States (5 Cir., 1957), 249 F.2d 737. Also as to the breadth of the inquiry, see McCormick, Evidence, Section 43, at 92-93 (1954). The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 F.2d 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudolph-henderson-v-united-states-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack