William Driggers v. United States

Fifth Circuit

William Driggers v. United States

384 F.2d 158, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4164

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 1967

Docket24727_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 384 F.2d 158 (William Driggers v. United States) 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

William Driggers v. United States, 384 F.2d 158, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4164 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted the appellant of the unlawful sale of twenty gallons of whiskey without the immediate containers being stamped, 26 U.S.C.A. § 5604 (a) (1). He here complains that the trial court erred in permitting the Government witnesses to testify that there were no stamps on the jugs instead of producing the jugs as the best evidence. This was not error, Burney v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 339 F.2d 91; Dicks v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 713.

It is next contended that the Court should have, in effect, instructed the jury that the defendant was not *159 guilty by reason of entrapment, further that objections should not have been sustained to the form of some of the questions sought to be propounded on behalf of appellant with reference to alleged entrapment. We are of the view that the evidence in this case presented a typical jury issue as to entrapment and that no other reversible errors appear in this record.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted the appellant of the unlawful sale of twenty gallons of whiskey without the immediate containers being stamped, 26 U.S.C.A. § 5604 (a) (1). He here complains that the trial court erred in permitting the Government witnesses to testify that there were no stamps on the jugs instead of producing the jugs as the best evidence. This was not error, Burney v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 339 F.2d 91; Dicks v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 713.

It is next contended that the Court should have, in effect, instructed the jury that the defendant was not *159 guilty by reason of entrapment, further that objections should not have been sustained to the form of some of the questions sought to be propounded on behalf of appellant with reference to alleged entrapment. We are of the view that the evidence in this case presented a typical jury issue as to entrapment and that no other reversible errors appear in this record.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 F.2d 158, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-driggers-v-united-states-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack