TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. William Jimmy Roland

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Jimmy ROLAND, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Roland, 449 F.2d 1281 (5th Cir. 1971)
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
October 27, 1971
Docket
No. 71-1958_1
Judges
Gewin, Goldberg, Dyer
Citations
449 F.2d 12811971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7396

Opinion — Per Curiam

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 →
1972: 51974: 21975: 11976: 31977: 21978: 41979: 11982: 11983: 11986: 11989: 119722026peak 1972 · 5

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) 6,513
Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1949) 1,506
United States v. Lipscomb, 435 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1971) 107
United States v. Panczko, 429 F.2d 683 (7th Cir. 1970) 20

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