United States v. Claude Blackburn

592 F.2d 300, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17241
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 29, 1979
Docket78-5269
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 592 F.2d 300 (United States v. Claude Blackburn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Claude Blackburn, 592 F.2d 300, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17241 (6th Cir. 1979).

Opinions

[301]*301ORDER

Appellant Claude Blackburn was convicted, following a jury trial, of possession of a firearm by one having been previously convicted of a felony. 18 U.S.C. § 1202(a)(1) (Appendix) (1976).

In his appeal Blackburn asserts that it was error for the trial court to have refused his offer to stipulate that he had committed the felonies described in the indictment in order to avoid disclosing their nature to the jury. In short, the appellant asks this court to reconsider its earlier opinion in United States v. Burkhart, 545 F.2d 14 (6th Cir. 1976). Upon consideration, the court adheres to its decision in Burkhart, supra, particularly under the facts of this case.

Appellant also claims that it was error for the court to have permitted the government to impeach him on cross-examination by use of a felony more than ten years old, in violation of Rule 609(b), Fed.R.Evid. While the court is of the opinion that the admission of the proof of this third felony did not conform to the standards of Rule 609(b), as set forth in this court’s opinion in United States v. Sims, 588 F.2d 1145 (6th Cir. 1978), it is further of the opinion that any error in this regard was harmless within the meaning of Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Crim.P., particularly since the jury already had before it the evidence of Blackburn’s commission of the felonies described in the indictment. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Hinton McClure Waters
96 F.3d 1449 (Sixth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Wacker
72 F.3d 1453 (Tenth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Keith E. Jones
67 F.3d 320 (D.C. Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Gregory Tyree Henderson
50 F.3d 11 (Sixth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Jacobs
Third Circuit, 1995
United States v. Orlando Jacobs
44 F.3d 1219 (Third Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Tavares
21 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Kevin Gilliam
994 F.2d 97 (Second Circuit, 1993)
United States v. David Lebron Benford
983 F.2d 1069 (Sixth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Carl Gene Golden
898 F.2d 148 (Fourth Circuit, 1990)
People v. Kunze
550 N.E.2d 284 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1990)
United States v. Janet Elaine Scisney
885 F.2d 325 (Sixth Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Johnson
585 F. Supp. 80 (M.D. Tennessee, 1984)
United States v. Joseph A. Timpani
665 F.2d 1 (First Circuit, 1981)
United States v. Claude Blackburn
592 F.2d 300 (Sixth Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
592 F.2d 300, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-claude-blackburn-ca6-1979.