FREDERIC PITTMAN, 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 while one jury instruction regarding punishment was over-broad, it was effectively neutralized by a subsequent curative instruction and did not constitute reversible error.
The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that several jury instructions were incorrect. The court reviewed the challenged instructions.…
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 Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal the defendant’s assignments of error are devoted exclusively to instructions given by the Court.
Appellant urges that eleven of the twelve challenged instructions are incorrect. But at most they contain some surplusage and, in a few instances, inapt words. Imprecision of statement and inexactness of language in instructions is not reversible error, unless the jury is misled. Here no such conclusion is indicated.
We agree with appellant that the remaining instruction, concerning the matter of punishment, was over-broad. The crimes were such that the jury was in no way concerned with the penalty that attached [Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 68 S.Ct. 880, 92 L.Ed. 1055 (1948)] and the part of the Court’s instruction to that effect was proper; the further statement concerning the Court’s broad powers over the defendant in the event of his guilt was not. See Pope v. United States, 298 F. 2d 507 (5th Cir. 1962).
The court, in an instruction which immediately followed the erroneous comment, remarked that the matter was one exclusively for the court to decide and admonished the jury to disregard “possible punishment” in arriving at its decision. The appellant does not contend that the evidence was insufficient to support conviction, and we conclude, under the circumstances, that the erroneous instruction was neutralized.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. McCRACKEN, 488 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1974)
-
United States v. Boettjer, 569 F.2d 1078 (9th Cir. 1978)
Authorities Cited
- Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740 (U.S. 1948)
- Pope v. United States, 298 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1962)