United States v. James Burel Jones

460 F.2d 325, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9481
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 18, 1972·No. 72-1112·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jones appeals from his conviction for possession of stolen mail. 18 U.S.C. § 1708. We affirm.

Neither of Jones’ claims has merit. The challenged remarks of the prosecutor, taken in context, were not such as to mislead the jury. Jones’ counsel did not object to them and made no request to the trial judge for a cautionary statement, if one were in fact warranted. While we are highly skeptical that there was any error, assuming that there were, it was surely harmless. Fed. R.Crim.P. 52(a).

Jones also attacks one of the instructions to the jury. His counsel was afforded an opportunity to object to the instructions at trial and did not do so. Hence review is foreclosed. Fed.R.Crim. P. 30.

Affirmed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

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

United States v. James Burel Jones, 460 F.2d 325, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9481 (9th Cir. 1972).

460 F.2d 325 (United States v. James Burel Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related