ISAAC BOOKER T. WASHINGTON JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts and that the defendant's claims of inconsistent verdicts and entrapment were without merit.
The appellant was charged with multiple counts of violating the Harrison Narcotic Act and Narcotic Import Act. The trial court directed a verdict of a…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Harrison Narcotic Act cases and more on FLexlaw
[*842] PER CURIAM.
The appellant was charged in a bill of information with nine counts relating to the violation of the Harrison Narcotic Act, 26 U.S.C.A. § 4701 et seq. and the Narcotic Import Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 171 et seq.
Count 1 alleged the purchase of thirteen capsules of heroin on April 15,1959. Count 2 alleged the sale of the same capsules on the same day. Count 3 alleged the concealment of them on the same date.
Count 4 alleged the purchase of seventeen capsules of heroin on April 20, 1959. Count 5 alleged the sale of the same capsules on the same date, and Count 6 alleged the concealment on the same date.
Count 7 alleged the purchase of nine capsules of heroin on May 8, 1959. Count 8 alleged the sale of the same capsules on the same date, and Count 9 alleged their concealment on the same date.
The Court directed a verdict of acquittal as to all counts except the sale counts, 2, 5, and 8. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty as to Count 2 and guilty as to Counts 5 and 8.
Appealing from the judgment and sentence on these two counts, defendant is here insisting that it was error to deny his motion for a directed verdict because, as to Count 5, the evidence was insufficient to justify its submission to the jury, and, as to Count 8, the evidence established as matter of láw that defendant was entrapped into committing the offense. In further support of his claim of error as to Count 5, appellant insists that, since the jury found him not guilty as to Count 2, a verdict of guilty on Count 5 on substantially the same facts was completely inconsistent.
We are unable to agree with these views. On the contrary we think the evidence is ample to support the finding of the jury that defendant was guilty of the offenses charged in Count 5, and that there is nothing of substance in his claim of inconsistency in the verdicts on Counts 2 and 5. Of defendant’s contention that, within the teaching of Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413; Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848, and Henderson v. United States, 5 Cir., 261 F. 2d 909, he was the victim of entrapment, it is sufficient to say that the evidence in this case does not bring it within the reach of those cases. The cases controlling here are Accardi v. United States, 5 Cir., 257 F. 2d 168, Kivette v. United States, 5 Cir., 230 F. 2d 749, and Lathem v. United States, 5 Cir., 259 F. 2d 393.
We find no error in the judgment. It is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herrera v. United States, 384 F.2d 525 (5th Cir. 1967)
Authorities Cited
- Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1932)
- Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1958)
- Accardi v. United States, 257 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Lima Lynn Kivette and Dow Kivette v. United States, 230 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1956)
- Henderson v. United States, 261 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Lathem v. United States, 259 F.2d 393 (5th Cir. 1958)