MARIE A. KELLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

D.C. Cir. | 1960-02-11
No. 15249
275 F.2d 10 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (1960) Caution
Cited by 22 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the conviction on the first count must be reversed due to the failure to instruct the jury on the elements of the offense. The conviction on the second count was affirmed.


Facts & Procedural History

The appellant was charged with violating federal narcotics statutes. For the first count, the government presented evidence that the appellant purchas…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This appellant was charged with violation of the federal narcotics statutes, the first count being based upon 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a), the second upon 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) and the third upon 21 U.S.C.A. § 174.1 She was acquitted as to the third count but was convicted and sentenced to serve five years on the first count and to serve twenty months to five years on the second count. This appeal followed.

We are satisfied that there was no error in the trial leading to the conviction on the second count. That judgment is therefore affirmed.

As to the first count (selling narcotics), the Government offered evidence that the appellant was asked by a plainclothes policeman to purchase narcotics for him; that he gave her money; that she went to a certain house where a seller of drugs was said to live; and that she later handed the officer a packet containing drugs. With the case in that posture, it became essential that the jury be instructed as to the elements necessary to' establish a sale by the appellant.2 No such instruction was given. On that ground and without reaching other points raised, we hold that the court erred in failing to grant appellant’s timely motion for a new trial.

Affirmed as to the second count. Reversed as to the first count.

. These sections of the Code, (1958), denounce three separate offenses. Gore v. United States, 1958, 357 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405, affirming 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 244 F. 2d 763. Cf. Harris v. United States, 1959, 359 U.S. 19, 79 S.Ct. 560, 3 L.Ed.2d 597.

. No evidence was offered that appellant had bartered, exchanged, or given away narcotic drugs. Cf. 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) (1958).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (11 total)

Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw