United States v. Jose Morell
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MORELL, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted, after jury trial, on all four counts of an indictment charging him with violations of the federal narcotic tax laws, 26 U.S.C. §§ 4704 (a) and 4705(a). He contends that the District Court erred in not charging the jury on the defense of entrapment and in failing to grant defense motions for a directed verdict based on *1213 alleged contradictions in the testimony of government witnesses.
1
We affirm.
Appellant took the stand at trial and denied having committed the offense. Having refused to admit commission of the crime as charged, he was not entitled to the defense of entrapment, United States v. Prieto-Olivas, 419 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1969).
At the close of the government’s case the appellant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal. The motion was renewed at the close of the entire case. Both times it was denied. A reading of the record reveals no substantial contradictions in the testimony of the government witnesses, and the jury chose not to believe the denials by the appellant. There was no error in denying the motions.
Affirmed.
1
. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969), Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969), Part I.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.