January v. United States, 23908.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 23908.,23908. |
| Citation | 409 F.2d 31 |
| Parties | Bruce Eugene JANUARY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Ralph Keen, Houston, Tex., for appellant.
James R. Gough, William B. Butler, Fred L. Hartman, Frank C. Cooksey, Asst. U. S. Attys., Morton L. Susman, U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Randolph W. Thrower, James R. Paulk, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., amici curiae.
Before TUTTLE and GEWIN, Circuit Judges, and PITTMAN, District Judge.
Bruce Eugene January was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas under an indictment which charged that, on two separate occasions, he transported a woman from Texas to Louisiana for purposes of prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (1964). We affirm the conviction.
The appellant contends that the court's charge was erroneous, that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, and that the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence. His chief complaint relates to the court's charge.
In examining the court's charge we do not segment it and pass upon isolated statements out of context. We must look at the entire charge and assess its full meaning as a whole.1 We have critically read the charge as given in light of appellant's contentions and find it to be satisfactory.2 Moreover, the appellant did not except to the charge on the ground he now urges, and the alleged defect would prompt reversal only if it constituted plain error.3 In our view there is no such error.
We have considered appellant's other contentions and find them totally without merit. There was substantial evidence which clearly supports the charges contained in the indictment. The jury so found and the verdict will not be disturbed.
Judgment affirmed.
1 Hickman v. United States, 406 F.2d 414 (5th Cir. 1969); Smith v. United States, 355 F.2d 912, 914 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1001, 86 S.Ct. 1922, 16 L.Ed.2d 1014 (1966); Beck v. United States, 317 F.2d 865, 871 (5th Cir. 1963).
2 See Masse v. United States, 210 F.2d 418, 421, 5th Cir., cert. denied, 347 U.S. 962, 74 S.Ct. 711, 98 L.Ed. 1105 (1954); Forrest v. United States, 363 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1966); see also Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 80, 79 S.Ct. 136, 3 L.Ed.2d 125 (1958); Valentine v. United States, 272 F.2d 777, 778 (5th Cir. 1959).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lloyd v. United States
...Jury Instructions in Federal Criminal Cases, §§ 17.01-1, 17.01-3, 22.04, 23.05, and accompanying Comments (1965). 8 January v. United States, 409 F.2d 31 (5th Cir. 1969); Hickman v. United States, 406 F.2d 414, 415 (5th Cir. 1969); Smith v. United States, 355 F.2d 912, 914 (5th Cir.), reh. ......
-
United States v. Edwards
...authorities. (4) The trial court erred in its placing of the burden of proof on the issue of specific intent. See January v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 31; Gurleski v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 405 F.2d 253, cert. denied, Smith v. United States, 395 U.S. 977, 89 S.Ct. 2127, ......
-
United States v. Jacquillon
...as a whole. United States v. Rouse, 5 Cir. 1971, 452 F.2d 311; United States v. Green, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 946; January v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 31. Immediately after the quoted passage, the trial court reminded the jury that the burden was on the Government to prove every ......
-
U.S. v. Chandler, 77-5562
...examining a challenge to the court's charge, we do not segment it and pass upon isolated statements out of context. January v. United States, 409 F.2d 31 (5th Cir. 1969). We must look at the entire charge and assess its meaning as a whole in order to determine if the issues were fairly pres......