Aaron v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24559.,24559. |
| Citation | 397 F.2d 584 |
| Parties | Hubert Marshall AARON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Joe Tunnell, Tyler, Tex., for appellant.
Jacob F. Bumstead, Asst. U. S. Atty., Beaumont, Tex., for appellee.
Before GODBOLD and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges, and McRAE, District Judge.
This appeal is from a jury conviction on all but three counts of a forty-count indictment. Appellant was convicted for willfully making false entries in bank records (18 U.S.C. § 1005), embezzlement and misapplication of bank funds (18 U.S.C. § 656).
The sole issue raised on appeal is the propriety of the prosecution's cross-examination of Appellant's first character witness, Haywood Watts. The pertinent part of the examination follows:
Character witnesses may be cross-examined to determine the credibility and accuracy of their testimony. As a general rule, however, this inquiry is limited to questions concerning knowledge of rumors involving character traits connected with the crime for which the defendant is on trial. See Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948). Appellant was on trial for a crime which involved the question of his honesty and fair dealing. The direct examination of his character witness was properly limited to these areas. Rumors of an illicit affair with a woman, even if these rumors were true, were wholly immaterial to the character traits involved in this case. The question was therefore improper, and the defense objection was properly sustained.
Appellant contends that the Court should have declared a mistrial or granted his motion for new trial on the basis of this improper cross-examination. The trial judge is in the best position to determine the effect that such improper evidence may have had on the jury, and except where there is a clear abuse of discretion in this regard a new trial will not be granted. Brown v. United States, 380 F.2d 477 (10th Cir. 1967).
After sustaining the objection of defense counsel the trial judge promptly instructed the jury to disregard the improper question. Normally such an admonition will cure improper evidence of this kind. Beatty v. United States, 357 F.2d 19 (10th Cir.1966). This principle is applicable where substantial rights of the defendant are not affected; that is, where guilt is clear and the error is harmless. Conner v. United States, 322 F.2d 647 (5th Cir.1963).
We have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Turcio
...opinion by questioning him as to his knowledge of specific acts, such acts must be relevant to those traits. See Aaron v. United States, 397 F.2d 584, 585 (5th Cir.); People v. Marsh, 58 Cal.2d 732, 745, 26 Cal.Rptr. 300, 376 P.2d 300. The determination of relevance must be made according t......
-
Kilgore v. United States
...v. Polack, 442 F.2d 446 (3rd Cir., 1971); United States v. Williams, 141 U.S.App.D.C. 133, 436 F.2d 287 (1970); Aaron v. United States, 397 F.2d 584 (5th Cir., 1968); United States v. Dibrizzi, 393 F.2d 642 (2nd Cir., 1968); United States v. Gosser, 339 F.2d 102 (6th Cir., 1964), cert. den.......
-
State v. Martin
...opinion by questioning him as to his knowledge of specific acts, such acts must be relevant to those traits. See Aaron v. United States, 397 F.2d 584, 585 (5th Cir.) People v. Marsh, 58 Cal.2d 732, 745, 26 Cal.Rptr. 300, 376 P.2d 300. The determination of relevance must be made according to......
-
Duke v. Pfizer, Inc., Div. of Pfizer Hosp.
...Since these facts were not disputed, in my discretion I admitted relevant documents proffered by defendant. See Aaron v. United States, 397 F.2d 584, 585-586 (5th Cir.1968) ("The trial judge is in the best position to determine the effect that such improper evidence may have had on the jury......