Sue Hoo Chee v. United States, 11481.

• Decision Date: 26 August 1947
• Docket Number: No. 11481.,11481.
• Citation: 163 F.2d 551
• Parties: SUE HOO CHEE v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

163 F.2d 551 (1947)

SUE HOO CHEE v. UNITED STATES.

No. 11481.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

August 26, 1947.

Walter E. Hettman and Chan Chung Wing, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal., and Harlan M. Thompson and Emmet J. Seawell, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Sacramento, Cal., for appellee.

Before GARRECHT, DENMAN, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of violating 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 in that he concealed smoking opium. He appeals from the judgment which followed.

Appellant claims that the United States Attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct in that he questioned witnesses as to whether or not appellant's wife was a user of opium and that such inquiry was irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial and that evidence to the effect that appellant operated a gambling house was subject to the same objections.

While appellant was on the stand he testified that he had never come in contact with opium in any form and had never seen a bindle of opium, that his wife was ill the evening of his arrest. The United States Attorney asked if the illness was not from smoking opium. The question was not allowed to be answered. Later on defense counsel reopened the subject by asking appellant's wife whether or not she was a user of opiates, to which she very positively answered in the negative.

Thereafter, the United States Attorney elicited evidence from the narcotic officer who participated in the arrest of appellant to the effect that the officer could tell by observing a person whether or not the person observed was an addict. Objections to this line of questioning were overruled. After the qualification questions had been answered the United States Attorney asked the officer to give his opinion as to whether or not appellant's wife was an addict. To this question the court sustained appellant's objections. The United States Attorney argued the materiality of the inquiry upon the ground that if the wife was an addict this fact would tend to show that appellant was not telling the truth when he testified that he had never come in contact with opium and that he had never seen a bindle of opium. The correctness of the court's ruling is not questioned in this appeal but it is clear that the United States Attorney's theory was not illogical.

We are of the opinion that there was no reversible error in the United States Attorney's inquiry nor was there reversible error in the court's action in permitting the qualification questions to the officer. By hindsight it may appear rather certain that the qualification was for the purpose it turned out to be used for and that the court should have disallowed it at...