Blackwell v. United States
| Decision Date | 16 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | 4376. |
| Citation | 236 F. 912 |
| Parties | BLACKWELL v. UNITED STATES. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James C. Denton, of Muskogee, Okl., for plaintiff in error.
Paul Pinson, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., of Atoka, Okl. (D. H. Linebaugh, U.S. Atty., and W. P. McGinnis, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Muskogee, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.
Before HOOK and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and AMIDON, District Judge.
Blackwell was convicted of introducing intoxicating liquor from outside the state of Oklahoma into that part of the state which was formerly Indian Territory. Act March 1, 1895, c. 145, 28 Stat. 693. But two grounds are urged for a reversal of the sentence:
First. That the court erred in allowing Welch, a witness for the government, to answer a question as to what defendant's business was about the time of his arrest. He answered that defendant was engaged in hauling whisky. But the question was proper. Moreover, the objection was merely that it was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Finally, on cross-examination the witness testified that all he meant was that defendant was engaged in hauling whisky the day he was caught, and that was true, as defendant admitted.
Second. It is contended that there was not sufficient evidence to convict. We think there was substantial evidence that defendant got the whisky described, 192 quarts and a five-gallon cask, at Coffeyville, Kan., instead of at South Coffeyville, Okl., and that therefore there was an introduction from outside the state, instead of a mere hauling within its borders. The jury were warranted in believing this from the facts and circumstances developed in the testimony of the government's witnesses, as against the claim of the defendant that he got the whisky at the hamlet of South Coffeyville.
The sentence is affirmed.
---------
Notes:
[1] Rehearing denied December 18, 1916.
---------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kroska v. United States
...v. U. S., 246 F. 910, 914, where incompetent evidence held non-prejudicial because appellant testified to same matter; Blackwell v. U. S., 236 F. 912, 913, where testimony that business of defendant on certain day was hauling whisky held nonprejudicial because admitted by 2 In other circuit......
-
Argeros v. State
... ... by defendant is not prejudicial error; (Motes v. United ... States, 178 U.S. 458; Blackwell v. United ... States, 236 F. 912; McDuffie v. State, 86 S.E ... ...
- Proctor Coal Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.