Wilson v. United States

Citation313 F.2d 317
Decision Date12 March 1963
Docket NumberNo. 18154.,18154.
PartiesIsaac Bud WILSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

David C. Phillips, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Brockman Adams, U. S. Atty., and David J. Dorsey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Before BARNES and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and MADDEN, Judge of the Court of Claims.


Appellant was charged in nine counts with violations of the narcotic laws of the United States on three occasions. Counts I, IV and VII charged three sales of narcotics not in the original stamped packages, 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a); Counts II, V and VIII charged three sales without written orders, 26 U.S.C. § 4705 (a), and Counts III, VI and IX charged the three sales of unlawfully imported narcotics.

A jury found appellant guilty of Counts I to III, inclusive, and Counts VII to IX, inclusive, and not guilty of Counts IV, V and VI. Appellant was sentenced to a ten year sentence on each count, all six ten-year terms to run concurrently.

Thus, if the conviction on any of the counts is good, the sentence must be affirmed.

Appellant has filed his own brief in propria persona, and a brief has been filed on his behalf by appointed counsel. Four points are made:

1. Error in admitting hearsay statements.

2. Entrapment existed as a matter of law.

3. There was insufficient evidence to convict, as a matter of law.

4. 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) is unconstitutional, as compelling a person to be a witness against himself.

We point out that 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) requires the purchaser of the narcotics to sign the written order, not the seller. Thus, United States v. Kahriger, 1952, 345 U.S. 22, 73 S.Ct. 510, 97 L.Ed. 754, and Russell v. United States, 9 Cir., 1962, 306 F.2d 402, both relating to the failure to register firearms, are inapposite. But we need not reach that point, if the appellant's sentence is supported on any one of Counts I, II, VII or IX.

Both the sufficiency of the evidence and the question of entrapment were left to the jury under appropriate instructions. We will not disturb the jury's finding. This is not a case where the issue of entrapment was not left to the jury, Lufty v. United States, 9 Cir., 1952, 198 F.2d 760; nor do its facts compare favorably with the "entrapment as a matter of law" cases, such as Sherman v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848. Here the criminal conduct for which appellant was convicted was not the product of the government's officials' creative activity; and clearly there was a ready complaisance on the part of the defendant Wilson to sell the narcotics to the government agent.

The remaining alleged error, in admitting alleged hearsay statements refers to (a) testimony of the undercover agent as to statements made by one Betty Williams to appellant in the presence of Betty Williams, appellant and the witness. "She had told him that I was interested in getting some "stuff". After Betty introduced me to the defendant and the defendant asked me how much stuff was I interested in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Wilson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 11, 1963
    ...United States, (9 Cir. 1960) 279 F.2d 342; Sinclair v. United States, (1929) 279 U.S. 263, 49 S.Ct. 268, 73 L.Ed. 692; Wilson v. United States, (9 Cir. 1963) 313 F.2d 317. Finding no merit in the appeal, the judgment of conviction is ...
  • United States v. Chee, 24649.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 16, 1970
    ...presence and during the actual joint commission of the offense. It was properly admissible as part of the res gestae. Wilson v. United States, 9 Cir., 1963, 313 F.2d 317, cert. denied, 1963, 374 U.S. 848, 83 S.Ct. 1910, 10 L.Ed.2d 1068; United States v. Annunziato, 2 Cir., 1961, 293 F.2d 37......
  • United States v. Teeslink, 23878.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 2, 1970
    ...on the part of Teeslink to steal another car in furtherance of his efforts to get out of the Marine Corps. See Wilson v. United States, 313 F.2d 317, 318 (9th Cir. 1963). The duty to determine whether or not the issue of entrapment exists is that of the judge and not the jury. Smith v. Unit......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT