Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Robert C. Gandy, Sr.

469 F.2d 1134

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-12-07
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Defendant-appellant Gandy appeals from a conviction of selling Cecil Leon Click five counterfeit federal reserve notes. 18 U.S.C. § 473. We affirm. Gandy contends that the trial court erred in allowing the government to rehabilitate Click, who testified for the government, with evidence of prior consistent statements. On cross-examination of Click, defense counsel had attempted to impeach him by establishing that Click had a grudge against Gandy arising from an altercation between the two men in 1966. Gandy argues that *1135 because the prior consistent statements were made after this date, they were inadmissible.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Robert C. Gandy, Sr.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
UNITED STATES v. GANDY,469 F.2d 1134(5th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROBERT C. GANDY, SR.,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-2159.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
December 7, 1972.
Ralph E. Coleman, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellant.
Wayman G. Sherrer, U.S. Atty., Melton L. Alexander, Asst. U.S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Defendant-appellant Gandy appeals from a conviction of selling Cecil Leon Click five counterfeit federal reserve notes.18 U.S.C. § 473. We affirm.

[2] Gandy contends that the trial court erred in allowing the government to rehabilitate Click, who testified for the government, with evidence of prior consistent statements. On cross-examination of Click, defense counsel had attempted to impeach him by establishing that Click had a grudge against Gandy arising from an altercation between the two men in 1966. Gandy argues thatPage 1135because the prior consistent statements were made after this date, they were inadmissible. After Click's motive in testifying as he did was put in issue by the defense, evidence of prior consistent statements and the circumstances under which they were made was relevant and proper to an evaluation of Click's motive for making the statements.SeeUnited States v. Bays,448 F.2d 977,979(5th Cir., 1971); United States v. Stamey,423 F.2d 1223(4th Cir., 1970); Copes v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 234,345 F.2d 723(1964).See also,United States v. Leggett,312 F.2d 566(4th Cir., 1962).

[3] We have considered appellant's other argument and find it meritless. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.Page 1154
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩