Haynes v. United States, 20112.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20112.,20112. |
| Citation | 319 F.2d 620 |
| Parties | Robert Lee HAYNES and Al Walter Bolden, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Samuel L. Egger, Robert P. Thomas, III, San Antonio, Tex., for appellants.
Andrew L. Jefferson, Jr., Harry Lee Hudspeth, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., Ernest Morgan, U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and CONNALLY, District Judge.
The two appellants, defendants below, were tried and convicted separately of violations of Title 21 U.S.C. § 176a and Title 26 U.S.C. § 4744(a), and they have appealed. Separate briefs have been prepared and filed in behalf of each appellant. Both raise essentially the same questions, in a total of five specifications urged by Haynes and four relied on by Bolden. The following issues are presented by both briefs considered together: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction under both counts of the indictment; and (2) whether or not the government is estopped in this prosecution because of the acts of various law enforcement officers before the marihuana was placed in an automobile owned by Bolden.
The government, in its brief, stating correctly that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, justified the jury in finding as it did, urges upon us that the evidence is sufficient to sustain both convictions under both counts of the indictment.
The defendant Bolden testified at his trial. Admitting that he was in the company of Haynes and Purifoy, he denied that he had any knowledge of the illegal transactions.
On the evidence as a whole, the theory of the prosecution may be thus stated. The appellant Haynes undertook to make by mail arrangements to have marihuana sent from Mexico to San Antonio; Bolden furnished the transportation and provided most of the interim financing; each of the defendants knew that the substance later found in Bolden's car was marihuana and that it had been imported from Mexico.
The theory of the appellants is that since the proof established that the marihuana was brought from Mexico by a government informer, one Juan Sanchez, and his bringing it in was assisted by government agents, it could not be held that it was unlawfully brought in for the reason that, under the statute, it is not an offense for a government agent to bring marihuana into the United States, and further that since, under federal law, government agents are not required to pay any tax on marihuana, there was no violation of either the smuggling statute or the transferee statute.
Appellants also argue strongly that the United States having brought the marihuana in and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Delgado
...aider and abetter. We held it is not an innocent act, and the defendant may be found guilty as an aider and abetter. Haynes v. United States, 319 F.2d 620 (5th Cir.1963); accord United States v. Meinster, 619 F.2d 1041 (4th Cir.1980); United States v. Gould, 419 F.2d 825 (9th Cir.1969). Uni......
-
U.S. v. Wise
...abetted informant acting for government), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 979, 110 S. Ct. 508, 107 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1989); Haynes v. United States, 319 F.2d 620, 621-22 (5th Cir. 1963)(defendant who arranged drug smuggling by informant could be convicted for importing that substance even though inform......
-
U.S. v. Hornaday, No. 03-13992.
...or transportation of the drugs, that the defendants had procured or aided was actually done by government agents: Haynes v. United States, 319 F.2d 620 (5th Cir.1963); United States v. Meinster, 619 F.2d 1041 (4th Cir.1980); United States v. Gould, 419 F.2d 825 (9th Cir.1969); United States......
-
United States v. Galvez
...denied, 397 U.S. 1002, 90 S.Ct. 1131, 25 L.Ed.2d 413 (1970); Stassi v. United States, 410 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1965); Haynes v. United States, 319 F.2d 620 (5th Cir. 1963); and United States v. Davis, 272 F.2d 149 (7th Cir. There is some suggestion that this may be a case of entrapment. In ou......