IVORY COLLINS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

9th Cir. | 1967-12-26
No. 21678
390 F.2d 260 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1967) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 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 trial court did not commit plain error by failing to strike testimony about past narcotics offenses, as defense counsel believed it was proper impeachment.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was convicted of narcotics offenses based on direct evidence and informant testimony. During the trial, testimony regarding appellant's past…

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:

There was direct evidence of appellant's possession of narcotics. The testimony of the government’s informant to this effect was competent, and his credibility was for the jury. Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 311, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966).

The trial court was correct in holding that appellant, having denied committing the acts charged, was not entitled to an instruction on the defense of entrapment. Garibay-Garcia v. United States, 362 F. 2d 509 (9th Cir. 1966).

It was not plain error under the circumstances of this case for the District Court to fail upon its own motion to strike testimony elicited from appellant with respect to his past narcotics offenses and to instruct the jury to disregard such testimony. The record shows, that appellant's counsel refrained from moving to strike and requesting such an instruction in the belief that such testimony was proper impeaching evidence upon the issue of appellant’s credibility, and that the District Court concurred in this view. This was not “plain error” that this court may notice, under Fed.R. Cr.P. 52(b), despite counsel’s inaction.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw