United States v. Cannon, 72-2661.

Decision Date27 December 1972
Docket NumberNo. 72-2661.,72-2661.
Citation472 F.2d 144
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles CANNON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Steven M. Kipperman, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., James H. Daffer, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before HAMLEY, BROWNING and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After conviction by a jury of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1)), Cannon has appealed and urges three assignments of error: (1) comments of counsel for a co-defendant, during argument to the jury, were prejudicial and denied Cannon a fair trial; (2) requests for jury instructions were erroneously refused; and (3) the district court erred in admitting evidence that Cannon was armed at the time of the offense. He raises no question that the evidence was not sufficient to convict. We have considered all contentions, and find them to be without merit.

Cannon was tried with four codefendants. In closing argument, counsel for one of the others made an inappropriate remark that ". . . if it were not possible . . . to find guilt on the part of the defendants in this case, they wouldn't still be here." The trial judge took prompt corrective action and instructed the jury to disregard the comments. After denying a motion for a mistrial, the judge went further with the jury and patiently explained that the indictment was not proof of guilt, that it was the jury's province to establish the guilt or innocence of the defendants, and that there had been no ruling by the court on that question at all. In light of the substantial evidence of guilt and the court's prompt action, we conclude that the comment was not prejudicial.

The jury instructions proposed by counsel for Cannon did not properly state the law as to possession and are not supported by the authorities cited. There was no error in rejecting them.

Cannon was armed with a weapon at the time of the offense and evidence to that effect was admitted. He argues that the gun proved nothing and the evidence was highly prejudicial, outweighing any probative effect it might have had. That was for the trial court to weigh in the exercise of its discretion. United States v. Ravich 421 F.2d 1196 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 834, 91 S.Ct. 69, 27 L.Ed.2d 66 (1970); Rivers v. United States, 270 F. 2d 435 (9th Cir. 1959), cert....

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • U.S. v. Terry, 89-10121
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 9, 1990
    ...66, 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976); U.S. v. Romero, 692 F.2d 699 (10th Cir.1982); U.S. v. Mareno, 658 F.2d 1120 (6th Cir.1981); U.S. v. Cannon, 472 F.2d 144 (9th Cir.1972). We never have held that, as a matter of law, a gun offense always can be joined with a drug offense.3 The government suggests th......
  • U.S. v. Montes-Cardenas, MONTES-CARDENAS
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • November 15, 1984
    ...v. Pentado, 463 F.2d 355, 361 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 963, 35 L.Ed.2d 271 (1973); United States v. Cannon, 472 F.2d 144, 145 (9th Cir.1972); see also United States v. Arnott, 704 F.2d 322, 326 (6th Cir.1983) (weapons found in coconspirator's home properly admitt......
  • U.S. v. Brady, s. 77-3677
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 20, 1978
    ...versus the probative effect of this type of evidence and the exercise of his discretion is rarely disturbed. United States v. Cannon,472 F.2d 144, 145 (CA9 1972); Maxwell v. United States,368 F.2d 735, 740 (CA9 1966). This type of photograph is inadmissible only when the picture is of such ......
  • State v. Avila
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 2, 1974
    ...'It may reasonably be inferred that an armed possessor of drugs has something more in mind than mere personal use.' United States v. Cannon, 472 F.2d 144, 145 (9th Cir.). Under the recited facts, the jury could properly infer an intent to As to the balance of the issues presented in conside......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT