Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Wally James Daniel

United States v. Wally James Daniel, 459 F.2d 1029 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1972-05-05
Topic: general

PER CURIAM: Wally Daniel was convicted for importing and possessing marijuana and amphetamines in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), 952. Daniel argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. He contends that the only incriminating evidence was the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. There was ample corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice. Moreover, in this circuit, a conviction may rest on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice if the testimony is not incredible or unsubstantial on its face.

Citator

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

Cited by: 9 opinions

UNITED STATES v. DANIEL,459 F.2d 1029(9th Cir. 1972)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. WALLY JAMES DANIEL,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 72-1201.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 5, 1972.

Page 1030

John Politis, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Harry D. Steward, U.S. Atty., Catherine A. Chandler, Stephen G. Nelson, Asst. U.S. Attys., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of california.

Before HAMLEY, CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] Wally Daniel was convicted for importing and possessing marijuana and amphetamines in violation of21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1), 952.

[2] Daniel argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. He contends that the only incriminating evidence was the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. There was ample corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice. Moreover, in this circuit, a conviction may rest on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice if the testimony is not incredible or unsubstantial on its face. United States v. Andrews,455 F.2d 632(9th Cir. 1972); Darden v. United States,405 F.2d 1054(9th Cir. 1969). The testimony of Daniel's accomplice was neither incredible nor unsubstantial.

[3] Affirmed.Page 1031