TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jerome E. Doelle v. United States

Jerome E. DOELLE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Doelle v. United States, 309 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1962)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 7, 1962
Docket
No. 19692
Judges
Rives, Jones, Bell
Citations
309 F.2d 396

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction for violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, Title 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2312 and 2313, entered on a jury verdict.

The listing of a number of aliases in the indictment coupled with a complete absence of proof of any use of the aliases, while not to be commended, was not prejudicial error under the circumstances of this case in view of the admonishments of the jury by the court that no inference adverse to appellant was to be drawn therefrom. The aliases consisted of combinations of the name of appellant plus one nickname in lieu of his given name. The cases cited by appellant to the contrary are inapposite, although United States v. Monroe, 2 Cir., 1947, 164 F.2d 471 teaches that any prejudice arising from the use of an alias, as there, may be cured by instruction.

The record does not bear out the claim of prejudicial argument on the part of the prosecutor. Furthermore, there was no objection to the argument. Sikes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1960, 279 F.2d 561 .

The denial by the court of the request of appellant for a handwriting expert to testify in his behalf was not an abuse of discretion in view of the limitation placed on the evidence sought to be attacked through the use of the expert. This too was a discretionary matter for the trial judge. Reistroffer v. United States, 8 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 379 .

Appellant lost his case before the jury. The verdict was amply supported. No prejudicial error appearing we must and do Affirm.

How later courts describe this case

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

1973: 11984: 21988: 119732026peak 1984 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Satterfield743 F.2d 827 (11th Cir. 1984)
  2. Moore v. State298 N.E.2d 17 (Ind. Ct. App. 1973)
  3. In re United States743 F.2d 827 (11th Cir. 1984)
  4. Bailey v. United States544 A.2d 289 (D.C. 1988)

Most recent

  1. Bailey v. United States544 A.2d 289 (D.C. 1988)
  2. In re United States743 F.2d 827 (11th Cir. 1984)
  3. United States v. Satterfield743 F.2d 827 (11th Cir. 1984)
  4. Moore v. State298 N.E.2d 17 (Ind. Ct. App. 1973)

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
Reistroffer v. United States, W, 258 F.2d 379 (8th Cir. 1958) 61
United States v. Monroe, 164 F.2d 471 (2d Cir. 1947) 35
Sikes v. United States, 279 F.2d 561 (5th Cir. 1960) 12

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