United States v. Rodell Murvin, Sr.

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Rodell Murvin, Sr.

425 F.2d 1204, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9152

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 1970

Docket14270

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 425 F.2d 1204 (United States v. Rodell Murvin, Sr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Rodell Murvin, Sr., 425 F.2d 1204, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9152 (4th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant, convicted of violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 5604(a) (1), and the United States have stipulated, pursuant to Rule 34(f), Fed.R.App.P., that we decide this appeal without oral argument.

On appeal, defendant’s sole ground for reversal is that a witness for the government on redirect examination was asked whether defendant had a reputation for dealing in non-tax-paid whiskey and, over objection, the witness was permitted to testify that the defendant had that reputation. We agree that it was error to admit reputation testimony during the presentation of the government’s case in chief, over objection of the defendant, who neither testified nor offered any testimony in his own behalf. Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948); Benton v. United States, 233 F.2d 491 (4th Cir. 1956). Nevertheless, we affirm the conviction because, unlike Benton, the other evidence of guilt was overwhelming and we, therefore, conclude that the obvious error was harmless.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Defendant, convicted of violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 5604(a) (1), and the United States have stipulated, pursuant to Rule 34(f), Fed.R.App.P., that we decide this appeal without oral argument.

On appeal, defendant’s sole ground for reversal is that a witness for the government on redirect examination was asked whether defendant had a reputation for dealing in non-tax-paid whiskey and, over objection, the witness was permitted to testify that the defendant had that reputation. We agree that it was error to admit reputation testimony during the presentation of the government’s case in chief, over objection of the defendant, who neither testified nor offered any testimony in his own behalf. Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948); Benton v. United States, 233 F.2d 491 (4th Cir. 1956). Nevertheless, we affirm the conviction because, unlike Benton, the other evidence of guilt was overwhelming and we, therefore, conclude that the obvious error was harmless.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 F.2d 1204, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rodell-murvin-sr-ca4-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack