Bohol v. United States, 14725.
| Decision Date | 18 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 14725.,14725. |
| Citation | 227 F.2d 330 |
| Parties | Franklin Santos BOHOL and Henry Torres Dias, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
George Y. Kobayashi, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellants.
Louis B. Blissard, U. S. Atty., Charles B. Dwight, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, Lloyd H. Burke, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before BONE and LEMMON, Circuit Judges, and HARRISON, District Judge.
Appellants appeal from convictions for the sale of narcotics in four counts.
Bohol submitted himself as a witness. To sustain him as such his counsel inquired as to whether he had been "convicted once for possession of marijuana". He stated that he had on one occasion. Appellants complain of the cross-examination which follows and which is set forth in the footnote.1 They claim that the prosecutor knew that the conviction in the District Court of the Territory had been appealed to the Territorial Circuit Court where Bohol was entitled to a trial de novo and that in that court a nolle prosequi was entered. There are four ready answers to this: (1) No proper objection was made. Counsel for appellants merely stated "I object" without stating any grounds for his objection. (2) Defendant opened up the matter of prior conviction and the prosecutor was well within his rights in inquiring further into the matter. (3) Bohol admitted a second conviction and is here in no position to ask for a reversal because of his own failure to bring out the fact of the nolle prosequi. (4) For the purpose of impeachment it was proper to inquire into the prior conviction in the territorial district court. Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., volume 4, Sec. 1270, pages 538-539, and cases there cited. As to reversal of judgment, op. cit., volume 2, Sec. 523, page 616. Cf. op. cit., volume 2, Sec. 521, note 2, page 614.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Penta, No. 72-1331.
...and might have been inquired into by the prosecutor in the face of a defendant's silence on direct examination. Bohol v. United States, 227 F. 2d 330 (9th Cir. 1955); United States v. Menk, 406 F.2d 124 (7th Cir. 1968) cert. denied, 395 U.S. 946, 89 S.Ct. 2019, 23 L.Ed.2d 464 (1969). That i......
-
United States v. Harris
...States v. Cook, 432 F.2d 1093, 1100 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 996, 91 S.Ct. 1224, 28 L.Ed.2d 535 (1971); Bohol v. United States, 227 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1955). We have considered the other contentions of the defendants and find them without The judgments of the district court w......
-
United States v. Cisneros
...Cir., 249 F.2d 737; Steele v. United States, 5 Cir., 243 F.2d 712; Pittman v. United States, 8 Cir., 42 F.2d 793; and see: Bohol v. United States, 9 Cir., 227 F.2d 330; and United States v. Bucur, supra). The question of whether crimes falling in either of the latter two categories are felo......
-
Isaac v. United States
...the door, so to speak, the jury was entitled to know the charge in the indictment to which the plea was entered. Cf. Bohol v. United States, 227 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1955); United States v. White, 377 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1967). The evidence so introduced by the defendant himself was not subjec......