United States v. Richard Ernest Crews

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Richard Ernest Crews

483 F.2d 979, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8114

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 30, 1973

Docket73-1739

StatusPublished

This text of 483 F.2d 979 (United States v. Richard Ernest Crews) 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. Richard Ernest Crews, 483 F.2d 979, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8114 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from appellant’s conviction by a jury trial of possessing a quantity of marihuana in violation of Section 844(a) of the United States Code. The appellant’s single assignment of error complains of the district court’s re-instruction to the jury. After the original charge had been given by the district court and the jury had been deliberating for approximately one hour the jury requested the court for a re-instruction of the definitions of actual and constructive possession. After consultation with counsel for both the government and the defendant the district court re-instructed the jury by redefining both types of possession.

We find no error in the original instruction nor the later instruction given by the district court. The appellant’s assignment of error is without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from appellant’s conviction by a jury trial of possessing a quantity of marihuana in violation of Section 844(a) of the United States Code. The appellant’s single assignment of error complains of the district court’s re-instruction to the jury. After the original charge had been given by the district court and the jury had been deliberating for approximately one hour the jury requested the court for a re-instruction of the definitions of actual and constructive possession. After consultation with counsel for both the government and the defendant the district court re-instructed the jury by redefining both types of possession.

We find no error in the original instruction nor the later instruction given by the district court. The appellant’s assignment of error is without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 F.2d 979, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-ernest-crews-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack