UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
PAUL BERT HICKMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

5th Cir. | 1972-10-02
No. 72-1753
468 F.2d 610 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1972)

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 affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence or in its jury instructions.


Facts & Procedural History

Hickman was convicted for defrauding a car dealer with a bad check, causing interstate commerce travel in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. He appealed h…

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:

Hickman appeals from a jury cdnviction and 10 year sentence for defrauding a ear dealer out of a new Lincoln automobile by giving him a bad check and causing him to travel in interstate commerce from Alabama to Georgia in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. We affirm. 1. The testimony of three government witnesses as to a financial statement was admissible under an exception to the best evidence rule, that is, that secondary evidence is admissible, within the discretion of the trial judge, where it appears that the original writing has been lost or destroyed, without any fault of the party offering the evidence.

2. The four insufficient checks were admissible into evidence to prove intent, and no abuse of discretion of the trial judge was shown.

3. The trial judge was in the best position to determine possible prejudice from the prosecutor’s reference to excluded evidence. He rebuffed the attorney at the time, and he did not abuse the broad discretion allowed the trial court in denying a motion for a mistrial.

4. We perceive no error in the trial judge’s charge to the jury concerning the proof of other similar offenses or acts to show fraudulent intent.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw