TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ernest James Cox v. United States

Ernest James COX, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Cox v. United States, 287 F.2d 41 (9th Cir. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 15, 1961
Docket
No. 16924
Judges
Pope, Hamlin, Koelsch
Citations
287 F.2d 411961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5324

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty after trial upon four counts charging certain offenses relating to the sale, receiving, concealing and transporting narcotic drugs. Counts 1 and 2 related to sales and concealment and transportation on April 9, 1959, and counts 3 and 4 related to receiving and concealing heroin and marijuana on April 17, 1959.

The Government’s proof in respect to counts 3 and 4 included the introduction in evidence against the appellant of narcotic drugs seized on April 17, 1959 at appellant’s home at the time of his arrest. Claiming that the arrest and entry into his home was in violation of his constitutional rights, the appellant prior to trial moved to suppress the evidence thus seized. His motion was denied and the narcotics thus obtained were introduced at his trial. These exhibits had nothing to do with the proof of the Government on counts 1 and 2. He was found guilty on all four counts and received prison sentences on each count, all such sentences being for the same period of time and to run concurrently. Upon this appeal appellant’s contention is error in failing to suppress the evidence mentioned, and the receipt of same at the trial.

Since the claimed error in no manner affects appellant’s conviction under the first two counts, it is plain that he has no standing to assert errors which at best could only affect counts 3 and 4. Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 299 , 49 S.Ct. 268 , 73 L.Ed. 692 ; Winger v. United States, 9 Cir., 233 F.2d 440 ; King v. United States, 9 Cir., 279 F.2d 342, 344 . Appellant asserts that the error in receiving the physical evidence *42 in support of the charges under counts 3 and 4 may have had an adverse effect upon the jury, in arriving at their verdict upon counts 1 and 2. There is no authority for that position. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1967: 21970: 119672026peak 1967 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. James A. Boyajian, Assignee of Triumph Manufacturing Company, Bankrupt v. The United States423 F.2d 1231 (Ct. Cl. 1970)
  2. Vivian Brown v. United States372 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1967)
  3. Vivian Brown v. United States372 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1967)

Most recent

  1. James A. Boyajian, Assignee of Triumph Manufacturing Company, Bankrupt v. The United States423 F.2d 1231 (Ct. Cl. 1970)
  2. Vivian Brown v. United States372 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1967)
  3. Vivian Brown v. United States372 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1967)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929) 369
Winger v. United States, 233 F.2d 440 (9th Cir. 1956) 14
King v. United States, 279 F.2d 342 (9th Cir. 1960) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list