United States v. Lawrance

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Lawrance

498 F.2d 1065

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 21, 1974

DocketNo. 74-1263

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 498 F.2d 1065 (United States v. Lawrance) 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. Lawrance, 498 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was found guilty of distribution of heroin in violation of 26 U.S. C. §§ 4705(a) and 4704(a). He raises three issues on appeal. We affirm.

Appellant’s objections to witness testimony and questions of the prosecutor were cured of any prejudicial effect by immediate jury instructions. See United States v. Frost, 5 Cir., 1970, 434 F.2d 607.

The scope and bounds of cross-examination rest within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Gordon v. United States, 5 Cir., 1971, 438 F.2d 858. Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The issue of defendant’s sanity was properly submitted to the jury. See Blake v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 407 F.2d 908. Evidence was presented on both sides of the issue by physicians and laymen, and the jury made the determination that defendant was legally sane. The district court was correct in refusing to grant a directed verdict of acquittal on the basis of defendant’s alleged insanity. See United States v. Hernandez, 5 Cir., 1971, 438 F.2d 676.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was found guilty of distribution of heroin in violation of 26 U.S. C. §§ 4705(a) and 4704(a). He raises three issues on appeal. We affirm.

Appellant’s objections to witness testimony and questions of the prosecutor were cured of any prejudicial effect by immediate jury instructions. See United States v. Frost, 5 Cir., 1970, 434 F.2d 607.

The scope and bounds of cross-examination rest within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Gordon v. United States, 5 Cir., 1971, 438 F.2d 858. Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The issue of defendant’s sanity was properly submitted to the jury. See Blake v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 407 F.2d 908. Evidence was presented on both sides of the issue by physicians and laymen, and the jury made the determination that defendant was legally sane. The district court was correct in refusing to grant a directed verdict of acquittal on the basis of defendant’s alleged insanity. See United States v. Hernandez, 5 Cir., 1971, 438 F.2d 676.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 F.2d 1065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lawrance-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack