UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
HORACE LEMAR EDWARDS AND RONALD CLIFTON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 jury instructions were erroneous, requiring reversal.
Defendants were convicted of unlawful weapon possession and armed robbery. The prosecution's case relied on victim identification and seized weapons, …
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 Alibi Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Horace Lemar Edwards of unlawfully carrying a pistol and of armed robbery on a military reservation. The same jury convicted Ronald Clifton on two counts of robbery at the same location as well as unlawfully carrying a pistol thereon, 18 U.S.C., § 13; Art. 1408 Vernon’s Ann. Texas Penal Code. We reverse, and remand for a new trial.
The case for the prosecution rested upon identification furnished by the victims of the alleged robberies and upon the seizure of the weapons when the defendants were arrested. The defense was an alibi.
Edwards and Clifton seek reversal on the following grounds: (1) because Edwards inadvertently entered a plea of guilty to the weapon charge in the presence of the jury; (2) the defendants were not allowed the correct number of peremptory challenges in the selection of the jury; (3) Edwards was denied his request for a polygraph examination; (4) there was no probable cause for the arrest of the defendants, which lead to the discovery of the weapons in question; and (5) the trial judge committed plain error in certain of his charges to the jury.
As to the instructions given the jury this case is almost completely identical to the situation existing in United States v. Dillion, 5 Cir., 1971, 446 F. 2d 598.
Dillon is, therefore, controlling. Reversal for a new trial cannot be avoided.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Edwards, 469 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Dillon, 446 F.2d 598 (5th Cir. 1971)