Louie Hung v. United States, 9295.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 9295.,9295. |
| Citation | 111 F.2d 325 |
| Parties | LOUIE HUNG v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Russell P. Tyler and Marshall B. Woodworth, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and S. P. Murman, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was convicted of the sale and concealment of smoking opium and he appeals.
In count 1 of the indictment he was charged with the unlawful sale of a tin of opium on April 25, 1939, in violation of the Harrison Narcotic Act, 26 U.S.C. A.Int.Rev.Code §§ 2553, 2557. Count 2 charged him with the fraudulent and knowing concealment of a tin of opium on May 11 of that year, in violation of the Jones-Miller Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. The principal grounds on which reversal is asked are (1) the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, based on the insufficiency of the evidence, (2) entrapment, and (3) refusal of a request to have the jury inspect the premises where the Government claims the offense under count 2 was committed.
After a studious examination of the record we are satisfied that the judgment of conviction should be affirmed. It was shown that on both occasions the narcotic agents supplied a Chinese informer with money and kept him under close observation. On each occasion the informer contacted appellant in Chinatown in San Francisco and was subsequently seen to meet and converse with appellant. Immediately after each transaction the informer was searched. He had parted with the money given him and was in possession of a tin of smoking opium.
While at the time of the first sale the actual delivery was not observed, the evidence leaves no rational ground for belief that the opium was not obtained from appellant. On the second occasion an agent actually saw the exchange of the money for the narcotic. Taking the stand in his own defense appellant admitted meeting the other Chinese at the places and about the times in question. He says the latter asked him to obtain opium but that the request was refused, as appellant was not in the business. On the whole, the evidence is persuasive of appellant's guilt.
The court properly instructed the jury on the subject of entrapment. Woo Wai v. United States, 9 Cir., 223 F. 412; Scriber v. United States, 6 Cir., 4 F.2d 97, 98. The jury were entitled to conclude from the evidence that the intent and purpose to violate the law were present and that the officers had done no more than furnish appellant the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sherman v. United States
...5 Cir., 205 F.2d 596; Nero v. United States, 6 Cir., 189 F.2d 515; United States v. Cerone, 7 Cir., 150 F.2d 382; Louie Hung v. United States, 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 325; Ryles v. United States, 10 Cir., 183 F.2d 944; Cratty v. United States, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 236, 163 F.2d 844. And in the followin......
-
United States v. Brandenburg
...429. And see Wall v. United States, 5 Cir., 1933, 65 F.2d 993; Meyer v. United States, 9 Cir., 1933, 67 F.2d 223; Louie Hung v. United States, 9 Cir., 1940, 111 F.2d 325; Weathers v. United States, 5 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 118, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 681, 62 S.Ct. 1267, 86 L.Ed. 1754; Uni......
-
Estrella-Ortega v. United States
...859; Notaro v. United States (9th Cir. 1966) 363 F.2d 169; Lutfy v. United States (9th Cir. 1952) 198 F.2d 760; Louie Hung v. United States (9th Cir. 1940) 111 F.2d 325; cf. Sorrells v. United States (1932) 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L. Ed. 413.) This is not a case like Sherman v. Unite......
-
Hodge v. United States, 7986.
...States, 73 App.D. C. 174, 187, 118 F.2d 375, 388; Note, 42 L.R.A. 368; 4 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 1164. 5 Louie Hung v. United States, 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 325, 326. 6 52 App.D.C. 384, 394, 287 F. 958, 968. 7 Thomas v. United States, App.D.C., 121 F.2d 905, 910; Williams v. United Stat......