United States v. Klein, 6908.
| Citation | 108 F.2d 458 |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 6908.,6908. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. KLEIN. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Martin O. Weisbrod, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
William J. Campbell, U. S. Atty., and Mary D. Bailey, both of Chicago, Ill.
Before EVANS, SPARKS, and KERNER, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Klein, with Harry Lerner, was charged by grand jury indictment with the violation of the narcotic laws and with conspiracy. The first count charged them with the sale of eight ounces and forty-eight grains of morphine to Andrew Koehn for $535, on June 1, 1938, without an order from him on a form issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, as required by 26 U.S.C.A. § 1044(a). The second count charged them with having received, concealed, bought, sold and facilitated transportation and concealment after importation of the same narcotics, and on the same date, in violation of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. The third count charged them with a conspiracy to commit the substantive offense charged in the second count. The verdict of the jury found Harry Lerner not guilty on any of the counts, and it found appellant guilty on each of the first two counts, but not guilty as to the third count.
Judgment of imprisonment was rendered on the verdict as to appellant, and from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted. The errors relied upon for reversal are as follows: (1) The record does not show that the judgment and verdict were supported by substantial evidence which proves appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; instead it shows entrapment; (2) the court erred in allowing prejudicial cross-examination of appellant; (3) the court erred in its charge to the jury on the law of entrapment; and (4) the court erred in refusing to give proper instruction on the law of entrapment which was tendered by the appellant.
The record discloses, and it is not denied, that the sale was made as charged. However, a reversal is sought on the grounds that the sale was accomplished by means of entrapment, and that the cross-examination was prejudicial. We think it is unnecessary to set forth the evidence bearing on this question. It is sufficient to say that a reading of this entire record convinces us beyond doubt that the uncontradicted evidence discloses that there was no entrapment as to appellant. This being true, we think there is no reversible error with respect to the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tudor v. United States
...Ry. Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 253 F. 907, 911-913; Doremus v. United States, 5 Cir., 262 F. 849, 852, 13 A.L.R. 853; United States v. Klein, 7 Cir., 108 F.2d 458; Conway v. United States, supra. 8 There was no demurrer to the indictment, no motion for a directed verdict. 9 Cf. Hopper v.......
-
Conway v. United States
...R. Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 253 F. 907, 911-913; Doremus v. United States, 5 Cir., 262 F. 849, 852, 13 A.L.R. 853; United States v. Klein, 7 Cir., 108 F.2d 458; Tudor v. United States, 22 There was no demurrer to the indictment. 23 Cf. Hopper v. United States, supra; Lowrance v. United......
-
Howard v. United States, 15665.
...could not be prejudiced by an erroneous instruction of the court as to a defense that is unsupported by any evidence. United States v. Klein, 7 Cir., 108 F.2d 458. "The Government respectfully concludes that there is no evidence of insanity in the record, and the court's charge on this issu......
- United States v. Avis, 7288.