Samuel Eugene Smith v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Samuel Eugene Smith v. United States

363 F.2d 428, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5463

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 18, 1966

Docket22695

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 363 F.2d 428 (Samuel Eugene Smith 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

Samuel Eugene Smith v. United States, 363 F.2d 428, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5463 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Samuel Eugene Smith, was convicted by a jury April 26, 1965 for transportation and possession of distilled spirits without proper stamps in violation of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5205(a) (2), 5604(a) (1). He alleges three errors in this appeal: (1) Insufficient evidence of dominion and control to support the conviction; (2) prejudicial emphasis in the charge to the jury on the indictment and the definition of “joint possession”; and (3) illegal search and seizure of the unstamped whiskey.

We find no reversible error in this case. The evidence of dominion and control of the whiskey is sufficient to support the verdict of guilty. See Handford v. United States, 5 Cir. 1957, 249. F.2d 295. The charge describes the indictment and the definition of “joint possession” with sufficient clarity. The judge specifically cautioned the jury against drawing an unfavorable inference from his repetition of any element of the *429 instructions. See Garner v. United States, 6 Cir. 1957, 244 F.2d 575, cert. denied, 355 U.S. 832, 78 S.Ct. 47, 2 L.Ed. 2d 44.

The court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence of whiskey seized without a warrant. The facts that had come to the attention of the arresting officers were “sufficient, in the circumstances, to lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that liquor [was] illegally possessed in the automobile to be searched.” Husty v. United States, 1931, 282 U.S. 694, 701, 51 S.Ct. 240, 242, 75 L.Ed. 629, 632. The seizure of the whiskey followed a familiar pattern. An informer reported to government agents that he would drive automobiles containing untaxed liquor to a rendezvous with the arresting officers. He did. See Bruner v. United States, 5 Cir. 1961, 293 F.2d 621. The trial judge had ample opportunity to affirm the informer’s record of reliability; the informer testified at the trial. Cf. Bruner v. United States, supra, 293 F.2d at 622.

The judgment must be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Samuel Eugene Smith, was convicted by a jury April 26, 1965 for transportation and possession of distilled spirits without proper stamps in violation of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5205(a) (2), 5604(a) (1). He alleges three errors in this appeal: (1) Insufficient evidence of dominion and control to support the conviction; (2) prejudicial emphasis in the charge to the jury on the indictment and the definition of “joint possession”; and (3) illegal search and seizure of the unstamped whiskey.

We find no reversible error in this case. The evidence of dominion and control of the whiskey is sufficient to support the verdict of guilty. See Handford v. United States, 5 Cir. 1957, 249. F.2d 295. The charge describes the indictment and the definition of “joint possession” with sufficient clarity. The judge specifically cautioned the jury against drawing an unfavorable inference from his repetition of any element of the *429 instructions. See Garner v. United States, 6 Cir. 1957, 244 F.2d 575, cert. denied, 355 U.S. 832, 78 S.Ct. 47, 2 L.Ed. 2d 44.

The court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence of whiskey seized without a warrant. The facts that had come to the attention of the arresting officers were “sufficient, in the circumstances, to lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that liquor [was] illegally possessed in the automobile to be searched.” Husty v. United States, 1931, 282 U.S. 694, 701, 51 S.Ct. 240, 242, 75 L.Ed. 629, 632. The seizure of the whiskey followed a familiar pattern. An informer reported to government agents that he would drive automobiles containing untaxed liquor to a rendezvous with the arresting officers. He did. See Bruner v. United States, 5 Cir. 1961, 293 F.2d 621. The trial judge had ample opportunity to affirm the informer’s record of reliability; the informer testified at the trial. Cf. Bruner v. United States, supra, 293 F.2d at 622.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 F.2d 428, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-eugene-smith-v-united-states-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack