United States v. Vansant, 24559.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24559.,24559. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Addison VANSANT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James W. Brammer, Jr. (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.
Stanley L. Patchell (argued), Richard K. Burke, U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
Before BARNES, HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from appellant's conviction by a jury verdict of the possession of ten pounds of marijuana. Appellant and two minors were arrested when some object, later ascertained to be marijuana, was thrown out of the automobile by the appellant during a chase by Custom officials. One of the three young men (Rutledge) turned state's evidence, and told the story of how the marijuana was arranged for in Mexico with a Mexican taxicab driver, and picked up on the next day on this side of the border near the border line.
No testimony was introduced in defense. Three errors are now alleged:
1. That the jury was wrongfully instructed it could infer unlawful importation from possession.
If the jury believed the testimony of Rutledge there was no need to rely on any inference. The defense made no objection to the court's instructions (R.T. 139-40), and hence waived error, unless we determine it was plain error for the court to give the instruction. We hold it was not. The Leary case expressly left open the very question appellant now wishes to raise, and Leary was decided two weeks before this case was tried. Leary v. United States, May 19, 1969, 395 U.S. 6, 47-52, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57. Under these circumstances we see no reason to invoke the plain error rule to excuse appellant from raising the constitutional issue at the time of trial.
2. That the marijuana (Exhibits 4-12, inclusive, and 15) was improperly admitted because its chain of government custody was questioned.
The Government insists the proof of the chain of custody was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. We agree. There was no "break" in the chain of custody; merely a question raised by the defense of a possibility of a break in the chain, i. e., that someone might have interfered with that chain. We think this "possibility" raises the question of the weight to be accorded by the jury to the sufficiency of the proof of a chain of custody, but no more than that.
3. That the defense to a charge of possession of marijuana imported contrary to law involves potential self-incrimination of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Sutton
...1483, and 1485 specifically mentioned). (b) Receiving, concealing and facilitating transportation and concealment: United States v. Vansant (9 Cir. 1970) 423 F.2d 620, cert. denied 400 U.S. 835, 91 S.Ct. 72, 27 L.Ed.2d 68 (1970) (19 U. S.C. §§ 1484 and 1485 specifically mentioned); United S......
-
United States v. Warner
...The Ninth Circuit has reached the same conclusion. See United States v. Avey, 9 Cir. 1970, 428 F.2d 1159, 1160; United States v. Vansant, 9 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 620. Moreover, we have reaffirmed our decision in Walden on at least four different occasions. See United States v. Johnson, 5 Cir.......
-
U.S. v. White
...by the jury to the sufficiency of the proof of a chain of custody. United States v. Ellis, 547 F.2d 863 (5 Cir. 1977); United States v. Vansant, 423 F.2d 620 (9 Cir. 1970). We apply the same rule in the instant Here the alleged break is that government agents did not witness the deal's cons......
-
United States v. Avey
...would violate their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. We have previously rejected this argument. United States v. Vansant, 423 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1970); Witt v. United States, 413 F.2d 303 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 932, 90 S.Ct. 272, 24 L.Ed.2d 230 (1969). See al......