United States v. Hurst

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Hurst

491 F.2d 1388, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9323

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 1974

DocketNo. 73-3727

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 491 F.2d 1388 (United States v. 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. Hurst, 491 F.2d 1388, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9323 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of violating the-Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A., § 2312, in transporting a stolen automobile in interstate commerce. He was not denied a speedy trial. There is no merit in his claim of prejudicial error based on the erroneous admission of evidence regarding a stolen drill and an unreturned rented tow bar found in the vehicle in question. In the context of the trial, this evidence was of little moment. It came into the case in the nature of an inadvertent statement and the witness was foreclosed by the. prosecutor from giving further testimony of such nature. There was no objection to the testimony [1389]*1389but the court, on its own motion, directed the jury in charge to give no consideration to the evidence. We hold that the error was harmless and that in no event did it rise to the level of plain (error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of violating the-Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C.A., § 2312, in transporting a stolen automobile in interstate commerce. He was not denied a speedy trial. There is no merit in his claim of prejudicial error based on the erroneous admission of evidence regarding a stolen drill and an unreturned rented tow bar found in the vehicle in question. In the context of the trial, this evidence was of little moment. It came into the case in the nature of an inadvertent statement and the witness was foreclosed by the. prosecutor from giving further testimony of such nature. There was no objection to the testimony [1389]*1389but the court, on its own motion, directed the jury in charge to give no consideration to the evidence. We hold that the error was harmless and that in no event did it rise to the level of plain (error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

491 F.2d 1388, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hurst-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack