United States v. Smith, 26637.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26637.,26637. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freddie McKinley SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jo Ann Diamos, Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.
James M. Wilkes, Asst. U. S. Atty., Richard K. Burke, U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MERRILL, BROWNING, and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
Smith was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2312. He urges reversal on two grounds.
Smith first argues that certain statements which he made to a highway patrol officer should have been excluded because he was not given Miranda warnings prior to his interrogation. The officer stopped the car in which Smith was a passenger for a traffic violation. The officer first questioned the driver, then checked his story with Smith. We stated in Lowe v. United States, 407 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1969):
The rule applies equally to questioning of a passenger of the nature and scope involved here.
The unexpressed intent of the officer to detain Smith had he attempted to leave does not create a custodial interrogation. Lowe, supra, 407 F.2d at 1397.
Smith next argues that reversal is required because the prosecution commented during closing argument on Smith's failure to testify. Taken in context and fairly construed, the comments refer to a statement made by Smith to an FBI agent which was properly in evidence. But at most they are ambiguous, and, considering the record as a whole, any error remaining after the trial court properly instructed the jury that no inference could be drawn from the defendant's failure to take the stand was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). Cf. United States v. Altavilla, 419 F.2d 815 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. Nasta, 398 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1966).
Smith also argues that the prosecutor improperly expressed his personal belief in Smith's guilt. We think the comment is more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Collom, s. 77-1040
...423 U.S. 1050, 96 S.Ct. 778, 46 L.Ed.2d 639 (1976); United States v. Edwards, 444 F.2d 122, 123 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Smith, 441 F.2d 539-40 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Chase, 414 F.2d 780, 781-82 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 920, 90 S.Ct. 247, 24 L.Ed.2d 200 (1969);......
-
Taylor v. State of Arizona, 71-1361.
...the incident and not the subjective intent of the officer. Lowe v. United States (9 Cir.1969) 407 F.2d 1391, 1396-7; United States v. Smith (9 Cir.1971) 441 F.2d 539, 540; United States v. Pellegrini (S.D.N.Y.1970) 309 F.Supp. 250, 255. See also, United States v. Hall (2 Cir.1969) 421 F.2d ......
-
U.S. v. Fleishman
...797) were sufficient to cure any prejudice that appellants may have suffered from any impermissible comments. See United States v. Smith, 441 F.2d 539, 540 (9th Cir. 1971). Use of Prior Uncounseled Mexican Convictions in The appellants argue that they were improperly sentenced due to the di......
-
Williams v. Wolff
...Cir. 1972); United States v. Estrada de Castillo, 549 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1976). Even more in point is the holding in United States v. Smith, 441 F.2d 539 (9th Cir. 1971) that where the prosecutor's comments are ambiguous, any error remaining after the court properly instructs the jury that ......