0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
10 vues1 page
Fred Mills appealed his conviction for possession and removal of untaxed liquor, arguing that evidence against him was obtained from an unlawful search and that the judge made improper comments about the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that the search was lawful as incident to Mills' arrest, which was based on reasonable grounds from the officers' own observations of a felony being committed. The court also noted that no exception was taken to the judge's comments, and they could not have affected the trial's outcome, as there was abundant evidence beyond doubt of Mills' guilt.
Fred Mills appealed his conviction for possession and removal of untaxed liquor, arguing that evidence against him was obtained from an unlawful search and that the judge made improper comments about the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that the search was lawful as incident to Mills' arrest, which was based on reasonable grounds from the officers' own observations of a felony being committed. The court also noted that no exception was taken to the judge's comments, and they could not have affected the trial's outcome, as there was abundant evidence beyond doubt of Mills' guilt.
Droits d'auteur :
Public Domain
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
Fred Mills appealed his conviction for possession and removal of untaxed liquor, arguing that evidence against him was obtained from an unlawful search and that the judge made improper comments about the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that the search was lawful as incident to Mills' arrest, which was based on reasonable grounds from the officers' own observations of a felony being committed. The court also noted that no exception was taken to the judge's comments, and they could not have affected the trial's outcome, as there was abundant evidence beyond doubt of Mills' guilt.
Droits d'auteur :
Public Domain
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
Argued January 21, 1958. Decided January 22, 1958.
I. C. Crawford, Asheville, N. C., for appellant
Hugh E. Monteith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sylva, N. C. (J. M. Baley, Jr., U. S. Atty., Asheville, N. C., on brief), for appellee. Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal in a criminal case in which appellant was convicted of
removal, concealment and possession of nontax-paid liquor in violation of the Internal Revenue Laws. There was abundant evidence of circumstances showing beyond doubt that appellant was guilty of the crime charged. He complains that evidence was admitted to the effect that a glass jar in his possession contained liquor and that this was discovered as the result of an unlawful search of his person. It appears, however, that the search, if it can be called a search, was perfectly lawful as it was incident to a lawful arrest made by officers who had reasonable ground from what they themselves had observed to believe that a felony was being committed by appellant in their presence. He complains, also, of comments made by the judge with respect to this evidence; but no exception was taken to them and they could not have affected the result of the trial. Appellant was clearly guilty of the crime charged and was properly tried and convicted.
United States v. Solomon Allard, Alias Joseph David Perry J. Fishman, Alias Fisher Armando P. Gervasoni Charles Leonard and Harry Minkoff, Perry J. Fishman, 240 F.2d 840, 3rd Cir. (1957)