United States v. Nichols
Decision Date | 18 September 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 13971.,13971. |
Citation | 322 F.2d 681 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alphonso NICHOLS, Defendant Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Melvin B. Lewis, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
James P. O'Brien, U. S. Atty., John Powers Crowley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel, for appellee.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and DUFFY and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.
Alphonso Nichols, defendant, has appealed from a judgment of conviction entered by the district court on an indictment charging violations of the United States narcotics laws, upon which he was sentenced to the custody of the attorney-general for a period of seven years on each of nine counts, to run concurrently.
Counts VIII and IX were dismissed on motion of the government. The various remaining counts respectively charged defendant with unlawful receipt, concealment, and sales of heroin in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4705(a) and 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 both as amended by the Narcotic Control Act of 1956.
Defendant pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury. His motion for a new trial was denied.
1. In this court defendant first contends that the district court did not tell the jury the details of what the indictment charged, but merely gave the indictment to the jury and told them that they were free to examine it "* * * if you like."
No objection based upon this alleged error was made at the trial, but we feel justified, in view of the nature of defendant's contention, to consider it in this court.
We have read the record and find that the jury was instructed, inter alia:
In United States v. Jonikas, 7 Cir., 197 F.2d 675, we approved a conviction of defendant for possessing and passing counterfeit bills. At page 679 of 197 F.2d we discussed defendant's contention that the district court failed to instruct the jury in relation to certain charges in the indictment. We said:
"* * * Failure to describe more specifically the separate counts of the indictment did not deprive the defendant of any constitutional right nor deprive the court of jurisdiction to render the judgment."
We feel that the submission of the indictment to be examined by the jury, at its option, was of dubious value, although harmless.
We hold that the court's instructions as to the charges in the indictment were sufficient.
2. Defendant argues that the district court refused to properly consider the element of knowledge and the element of intent, in its instruction on the meaning of possession. We disagree.
For instance, the court properly charged:
Moreover, we are satisfied that the jury was fully and correctly instructed on the law pertaining to reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence.
If anything, the court went out of its way to add the following instruction:
The court's solicitude for the rights of the defendant was emphasized by its concluding remarks to the jury:
"Let me reiterate, the defendant is presumed to be innocent unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Government has established his guilt as to one or more counts of the indictment."
3. Asserting that the "most significant issue presented to the jury lay in the relationship between the defendant and the deceased known as Dorothy Nichols," defendant now concedes that drug addicts conducted transactions at defendant's home, but that he had no knowledge thereof. He points out that count VII relates to narcotics kept in a safe-deposit box which only Dorothy entered. However, it was stipulated at the trial that this box at a Chicago bank was leased to three persons, who were defendant, Dorothy and one Charles A. Ross.
In support of the testimony of certain witnesses, the government relied, inter alia, on evidence that a gun, government's exhibit F, was found in said box and the testimony of government witness Mack, who stated that, in April of 1961, he possessed an Italian 25 caliber silver pistol with scroll work on the side and a pearl handle; that about the middle of April, the exact date being unknown, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Davis
...2 Cir., 262 F.2d 415, 416, cert. denied sub nom United States v. Galgano, 355 U.S. 883, 78 S.Ct. 150, 2 L.Ed.2d 113; United States v. Nichols, 7 Cir., 322 F.2d 681, cert. denied 375 U.S. 967, 84 S.Ct. 485, 11 L.Ed.2d 415; United States v. Atkins, 8 Cir., 473 F.2d 308, 313, cert. denied 412 ......
-
United States v. Hephner
...of the jurors told him that the foreman stopped discussion of lack of evidence because of the above instruction. 9 In United States v. Nichols, 322 F.2d 681 (7th Cir. 1963), this court held submission of an indictment to the jury to constitute harmless 10 Defendant also alleges error in the......
-
Hays v. State
...Norman v. United States, 6 Cir., 100 F.2d 905, 907, certiorari denied, 306 U.S. 660, 59 S.Ct. 790, 83 L.Ed. 1057; United States v. Nichols, 7 Cir., 322 F.2d 681, 683, certiorari denied, 375 U.S. 967, 84 S.Ct. 485, 11 L.Ed.2d 415. 'Information' is a legal term about which no juror should be ......
-
United States v. Atkins, 72-1181.
...v. Roviaro, 379 F.2d 911, 914 (7th Cir. 1967); United States v. DeDominicis, 332 F.2d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 1964); United States v. Nichols, 322 F.2d 681, 684 (7th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 967, 84 S.Ct. 485, 11 L. Ed.2d 415 (1964). August testified that he purchased two pounds of the ......