Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Johnnie Anderson, Jr., and Mary Knowles Anderson

United States v. Johnnie Anderson, Jr., & Mary Knowles Anderson, 485 F.2d 239 (5th Cir. 1973)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-10-10
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • flowerbed outside house part of "residence" and subject to search
  • warrant for premises held to include outside trash barrel

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Johnnie Anderson, Jr., and Mary Knowles Anderson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
12 opinions
UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON,485 F.2d 239(5th Cir. 1973)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JOHNNIE ANDERSON, JR., AND
MARY KNOWLES ANDERSON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 73-1899.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
October 10, 1973.
Page 240
Theodore Klein, Miami, Fla., Court appointed for defendants-appellants.

Robert W. Rust, U.S. Atty., Harold F. Keefe, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] We affirm the conviction of these two defendants on various counts of knowing and intentional possession of heroin with intent to distribute.

[2] (1) The flower bed outside the house was part of the residence described in the search warrant as 1209 Avenue Q, Apartment B, this being a duplex house with its own grounds and dissimilar to the hotel, store and apartment houses in the cases upon which appellants rely.

[3] (2) Defendants were properly joined under Rule8(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Denial of a motion for severance was not an abuse of the discretion reposed in the trial court in such matters.

[4] (3) Any possible error concerning the unobjected to, volunteered hearsay testimony was rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in view of the total evidence produced at trial.

[5] Affirmed.Page 245
  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). ↩