United States v. Sol Kaye

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Sol Kaye

457 F.2d 878

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 1972

Docket71-1678

StatusPublished

This text of 457 F.2d 878 (United States v. Sol Kaye) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Sol Kaye, 457 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Kaye was convicted, in a jury trial, of having broken into a post office with intent to commit larceny. 18 U.S.C. § 2115. He urges three grounds for reversal: (1) The admission into evidence of a statement made by Kaye while in custody, (2) the admission into evidence of the testimony of a Government chemist, and (3) a reference by the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument to facts not in evidence.

Since no objection in respect to any of the alleged errors was made during the proceedings in the trial court, we can recognize and remedy only “plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights.” Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.Proc. Other evidence of guilt, aside from the contested evidentiary statements, and lack of substantial prejudice inhering in the prosecuting attorney’s closing remarks compel us to conclude that Kaye presents no claim which reaches the level of plain error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Kaye was convicted, in a jury trial, of having broken into a post office with intent to commit larceny. 18 U.S.C. § 2115. He urges three grounds for reversal: (1) The admission into evidence of a statement made by Kaye while in custody, (2) the admission into evidence of the testimony of a Government chemist, and (3) a reference by the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument to facts not in evidence.

Since no objection in respect to any of the alleged errors was made during the proceedings in the trial court, we can recognize and remedy only “plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights.” Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.Proc. Other evidence of guilt, aside from the contested evidentiary statements, and lack of substantial prejudice inhering in the prosecuting attorney’s closing remarks compel us to conclude that Kaye presents no claim which reaches the level of plain error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 F.2d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sol-kaye-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack