United States v. Jiminez-Robles
| Decision Date | 06 August 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 23381.,23381. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Benito JIMINEZ-ROBLES, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Howard J. Bechefsky, of Sheela, Lightner, Hughes, Hilmen & Castro, San Diego, Cal., for appellant.
Edwin L. Miller, Jr., U. S. Atty., Shelby R. Gott, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellee.
Before DUNIWAY, and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and CROCKER,* District Judge.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court sentencing appellant following a jury verdict of guilty on two counts of a three count indictment. Count I charged that appellant knowingly concealed and facilitated the transportation and concealment of illegally imported narcotics. Count III charged that appellant conspired to knowingly conceal and facilitate the transportation, concealment and unlawful sale of illegally imported narcotics. Both counts charged a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174.
Appellant's only contention is that the prosecution's introduction of evidence concerning prior offenses was prejudicial misconduct.
The pertinent facts may be summarized as follows:
On September 5, 1967 Figueroa, a Federal Narcotics Agent, and Oscar Palm, an informant, met appellant and his brother in Glendale. Palm and Figueroa had a conversation with appellant and his brother concerning the purchase of heroin.
On November 24, appellant's brother telephoned Palm. Thereafter, Palm contacted Figueroa and other government agents and, the next day, went with them to San Ysidro. Pursuant to instructions from appellant's brother, Palm rented a motel room and waited with Figueroa for the delivery of heroin. Some time after 5:00 p. m. appellant arrived at the motel room. He told Figueroa and Palm that "the old man" was coming from Mexico with the "stuff." While waiting for the delivery, appellant had a conversation with Figueroa which included an offer by appellant to Figueroa to go into the heroin business with him.
When "the old man" arrived he pulled the heroin from his pants and handed it to appellant, who handed it to Figueroa. Appellant was then arrested.
At the trial, agent Figueroa gave testimony concerning his conversation with appellant in the motel room. He stated that appellant "more or less bragged to us about his — I would say narcotic dealings in the San Diego and Los Angeles area." After this statement the court immediately recessed. The next morning Figueroa resumed his testimony.
Appellant contends that the admission of testimony concerning his narcotic dealings in Los Angeles and San Diego was prejudicial misconduct. In appellant's view this amounted to evidence of prior criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Jones, 23594.
...the prior act and the act charged. In United States v. LeVison, 418 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1969), we said, quoting United States v. Jiminez-Robles, 415 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1969): "Granted, the general rule is, as appellant asserts, that evidence of prior criminal conduct is inadmissible. However......
-
United States v. Nunez
...plan, state of mind, intent, and lack of innocent purpose. The law is clear that such similar acts are admissible. United States v. Jiminez-Robles (9 Cir. 1969) 415 F.2d 308; United States v. Rodriguez (9 Cir. 1972) 459 F.2d 983, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 865, 93 S.Ct. 158, 34 L.Ed.2d 113; Uni......
-
State v. Fancher
...denied, 400 U.S. 823, 91 S.Ct. 44, 27 L.Ed.2d 51 (1970); DeCarlo v. United States, 422 F.2d 237 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Jiminez-Robles, 415 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1969). See generally, Annotation, 20 A.L.R. Fed. 125, 136--146 ...
-
United States v. Pitman, 72-1387.
...States v. Jones, 425 F.2d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 823, 91 S.Ct. 44, 27 L.Ed.2d 51 (1970); United States v. Jiminez-Robles, 415 F.2d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1969). In this case, Pitman was charged with the theft of a carton of Avon products delivered to his truck at the Monr......