United States v. William Jimmy Roland
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Jimmy ROLAND, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Roland appeals from a conviction for violating 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 5601 (a) (4), 5601(a) (1) and 5604(a) (l).
1
He maintains that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his character and reputation. We affirm.
On several occasions over a three week period Roland was observed working around an illegal distillery by federal agents. He was apprehended at the site. One of the arresting agents testified that after giving Roland the Miranda warnings he remarked that he thought Roland had gotten out of the liquor business. Roland moved for a mistrial on the ground that the statement was a comment upon his character. The motion was denied.
As Roland points out, the prosecution may not offer evidence concerning a defendant’s character or reputation during its case-in-chief. Michelson v. United States, 1948, 335 U.S. 469, 475 , 69 S.Ct. 213 , 93 L.Ed. 168 . The remark, volunteered by the witness, however, was ambiguous. It did not mention any past crimes nor did it necessarily refer to any illegal activity. If, however, the statement did have an impermissible connotation, it is uncontradicted that three agents observed Roland working at the distillery intermittently over a period of three weeks and he was apprehended at the scene. An error that might be prejudicial in a close case does not require reversal when evidence of the defendant’s guilt is strong. United States v. Lipscomb, 5 Cir. 1970, 435 F.2d 795, 803 , cert. denied 401 U.S. 980 , 91 S.Ct. 213 , 28 L.Ed.2d 331 ; United States v. Panczko, 7 Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 683, 688 .
Considering the evidence as a whole, we are “sure that the error did not influence the jury.” Kotteakos v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 750, 764 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 . Fed.R.Crim. P. 52(a).
The judgment of the district court is Affirmed.
1
. 26 U.S.C.A. § 5601 (a) Offenses. — Any person who— (1) Unregistered stills. — has in his possession or custody, or under his control, any still or distilling apparatus set up which is not registered, as required by section 5179(a)
* 'Jfi * % (4) Failure or refusal of distiller or rectifier to give bond. — carries on the business of a distiller or rectifier without having given bond as required by law; * * * 26 U.S.C.A. § 5604 (a) General. — Any person who shall— (1) transport, possess, buy, sell, or transfer any distilled spirits, required to be stamped under the provisions of section 5205(a) (2), unless the immediate container thereof has affixed thereto a stamp as required by such section; * * *
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 22 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- United States v. Randall J. Lee, George Grindrod and Gregg Parker Lyell
- Arizona v. Washington
- United States v. Cecil Dwayne Evans, Arnold Gene Tate, and Charles Edward Gent, Jr.
- United States v. James C. Gordon
- United States v. Victor Ernesto Bosch, United States of America v. Victor Correa Gomez
- United States v. Earnest Jackson, Jr., and James Arthur Porter, III
Most recent
- Buchannon v. State
- United States v. James C. Gordon
- United States v. Randall J. Lee, George Grindrod and Gregg Parker Lyell
- United States v. George Escamilla
- United States v. Earnest Jackson, Jr., and James Arthur Porter, III
- United States v. Victor Ernesto Bosch, United States of America v. Victor Correa Gomez
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.