192 F.2d 388 - Logan v. United States — 192 F.2d 388

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 1979

13 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Clyde G. Hood, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

¶2Frank B. Potter, U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Lester L. May, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

¶3Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and BORAH and STRUM, Circuit Judges.

¶4JOSEPH C. HUTCHESON, Jr., Chief Judge.

¶5On this appeal from a conviction for a narcotics violation, the record, containing no exceptions to the introduction of evidence, none to the charge, and no motion for a directed verdict, presents on its face nothing for our review.

¶6Jn view of the fact, howevqr, that the counsel who tried the case below was not self chosen but appointed, by the court, and it is claimed by the counsel who prosecutes the appeal that the , record reveals plain errors affecting substantial rights noticeable under Rule 52(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., we have carefully examined the record to determine if this is so.

¶7One of the claimed errors is that it was error to allow the prosecution to introduce in evidence some matchboxes containing marihuana seed, that this constituted proof of -a -separate and distinct offense and was, therefore, fundamental error.

¶8We do not think so. The matchboxes were not offered as constituting an additional offense but as part of the res gestae. Cf. Hensley v. United States, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 160 F.2d 257.

¶9Another is that the court did not give a full and adequate charge.

¶10 *389Putting aside the fact that, since no objection was made below, the claimed error must be highly prejudicial on its face, we find the charge adequate.

¶11The judgment is affirmed.