United States v. Byford Lee Hurst

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Byford Lee Hurst

436 F.2d 1092, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12356

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 15, 1971

Docket30167

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 436 F.2d 1092 (United States v. Byford Lee Hurst) 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

United States v. Byford Lee Hurst, 436 F.2d 1092, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12356 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from a conviction of violating Title 18 U.S.C.A. Section 1702, unlawful interception of mail. The appeal asserts the sole claim that the district court committed prejudicial error in permitting the court reporter, after a request from the jury, to read the testimony of a prosecution witness to the jury.

The jury had been deliberating some two hours when the request was made. All of the testimony of the particular witness was read to the jury. The testimony was directed to appellant’s role in the transaction which formed the subject matter of the crime charged vis a vis the role of a co-defendant and their joint activity. His testimony rounded out the factual picture in that it shows that he cashed the check for appellant which was taken from the mail, and after appellant had endorsed it. Appellant’s defense was that he had nothing to do with the interception of the check.

We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in permitting *1093 the reading of the testimony of this witness to the jury under the circumstances here. Sears v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 343 F.2d 139; Easley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 276. See also Pinckney v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 352 F.2d 69, in which we upheld a district court’s refusal to allow testimony to be read at the jury’s request.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from a conviction of violating Title 18 U.S.C.A. Section 1702, unlawful interception of mail. The appeal asserts the sole claim that the district court committed prejudicial error in permitting the court reporter, after a request from the jury, to read the testimony of a prosecution witness to the jury.

The jury had been deliberating some two hours when the request was made. All of the testimony of the particular witness was read to the jury. The testimony was directed to appellant’s role in the transaction which formed the subject matter of the crime charged vis a vis the role of a co-defendant and their joint activity. His testimony rounded out the factual picture in that it shows that he cashed the check for appellant which was taken from the mail, and after appellant had endorsed it. Appellant’s defense was that he had nothing to do with the interception of the check.

We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in permitting *1093 the reading of the testimony of this witness to the jury under the circumstances here. Sears v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 343 F.2d 139; Easley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 276. See also Pinckney v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 352 F.2d 69, in which we upheld a district court’s refusal to allow testimony to be read at the jury’s request.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 F.2d 1092, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-byford-lee-hurst-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack