Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Henley

United States v. Henley, 502 F.2d 585 (5th Cir. 1974)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1974-10-09
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that evidence that defendant possessed large quantity of drugs justified refusal to instruct jury on lesser-included offense of simple possession
  • possession of seven tons of marijuana justified trial court's refusal to instruct jury on lesser included offense of simple possession

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Henley. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
21 opinions
UNITED STATES v. HENLEY,502 F.2d 585(5th Cir. 1974)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PAUL DARRELL HENLEY AND
STANLEY PAUL RUTKOWSKI, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 74-1238.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 9, 1974.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied December 16, 1974.
John D. Shofi, Tampa, Fla. (Court-appointed), for Henley.

Raymond E. LaPorte, Tampa, Fla., for Rutkowski.

John L. Briggs, U.S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., D. Frank Winkles, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before COLEMAN, DYER and RONEY, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:
[1] After a jury trial defendants were convicted of importation and possession with intent to distribute 14,550 pounds of marijuana.21 U.S.C.A. §§ 952(a),960(b)(2) and21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). We have examined the briefs and record in respect to the errors assigned on this appeal. None of these points warrants disturbance of the District Court decision. The prosecutor's statements, acts, and conduct were, in reply to defense arguments, and were, in totality, not unfairlyPage 586prejudicial to defendants.SeeUnited States v. Rhoden,453 F.2d 598(5th Cir.), cert. denied,406 U.S. 947,92 S. Ct. 2050,32 L.Ed.2d 334(1972).

[2] The overwhelming evidence of possession of more than seven tons of marijuana justified the court's refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession.SeeSansone v. United States,380 U.S. 343,85 S.Ct. 1004,13 L.Ed.2d 882(1965).

[3] Evidence as to defendant Henley's reputation was properly allowed after he testified and introduced the defense of entrapment. Rocha v. United States,401 F.2d 529(5th Cir.), cert. denied,393 U.S. 1103,89 S.Ct. 905,21 L.Ed. 796(1969).

[4] In United States v. Gaines,489 F.2d 690(5th Cir. 1974), we rejected the argument that the government must prove the seized marijuana was Cannabis Sativa L.

[5] The evidence amply warrants the finding of guilt and no error of law is perceived in the trial.

[6] Affirmed.
  1. Rule 18, 5th Cir., see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,431 F.2d 409, Part I (5th Cir. 1970). ↩