United States v. Charles Broadhead

Second Circuit

United States v. Charles Broadhead

395 F.2d 761, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6683

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 3, 1968

Docket521, Docket 32178

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 395 F.2d 761 (United States v. Charles Broadhead) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Charles Broadhead, 395 F.2d 761, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6683 (2d Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial appellant was convicted on both counts of a two-count indictment. He was found guility of having concealed property of the United States with a value of more than $100 with intent to convert it to his own use, knowing the same to have been stolen (18 U.S.C. § 641) and with possession of property stolen from interstate commerce, knowing the property to have been stolen (18 U.S.C. § 659). Setting forth three grounds of alleged prejudicial trial error, appellant seeks reversal of the conviction and a new trial. Two of these claims relate to instructions on the applicable law that the trial judge gave to the jury; the third relates to the failure of the court to grant a motion for a mistrial after the case against appellant’s two codefendants was terminated because they each, out of the presence of the jury, pleaded guilty to the indictment.

It was not error to deny the motion for a mistrial. Also it is demonstrably clear that one of the court’s two instructions now claimed to have been erroneous was properly submitted to the jury after the judge gave defense trial counsel a full opportunity, accepted by counsel, to assist in its preparation, and that the other was not misleading and not a misstatement of law. Moreover, neither instruction was objected to at trial when given.

The conviction below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial appellant was convicted on both counts of a two-count indictment. He was found guility of having concealed property of the United States with a value of more than $100 with intent to convert it to his own use, knowing the same to have been stolen (18 U.S.C. § 641) and with possession of property stolen from interstate commerce, knowing the property to have been stolen (18 U.S.C. § 659). Setting forth three grounds of alleged prejudicial trial error, appellant seeks reversal of the conviction and a new trial. Two of these claims relate to instructions on the applicable law that the trial judge gave to the jury; the third relates to the failure of the court to grant a motion for a mistrial after the case against appellant’s two codefendants was terminated because they each, out of the presence of the jury, pleaded guilty to the indictment.

It was not error to deny the motion for a mistrial. Also it is demonstrably clear that one of the court’s two instructions now claimed to have been erroneous was properly submitted to the jury after the judge gave defense trial counsel a full opportunity, accepted by counsel, to assist in its preparation, and that the other was not misleading and not a misstatement of law. Moreover, neither instruction was objected to at trial when given.

The conviction below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 F.2d 761, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-broadhead-ca2-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack