normal_post - BOHOL vs. the United States of America - Weird and Extreme Author Topic: BOHOL vs. the United States of America  (Read 616 times)

Ligalig-Mike

  • FOUNDER
  • GURU
  • *****
  • avatar_1_1507939928 - BOHOL vs. the United States of America - Weird and Extreme
  • Posts: 18912
  • medal1 - BOHOL vs. the United States of America - Weird and Extrememedal2 - BOHOL vs. the United States of America - Weird and Extreme
  • Need A Website? Email me: info@mikeligalig.com
    • Share Post
xx - BOHOL vs. the United States of America - Weird and Extreme
BOHOL vs. the United States of America
« on: June 25, 2007, 10:09:42 AM »
FastCase

227 F.2d 330

Franklin Santos BOHOL and Henry Torres Dias, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 14725.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 18, 1955.

Page 331

George Y. Kobayashi, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellants.

Louis B. Blissard, U.S. Atty., Charles B. Dwight, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, Lloyd H. Burke, U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before BONE and LEMMON, Circuit Judges, and HARRISON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from convictions for the sale of narcotics in four counts.

Bohol submitted himself as a witness. To sustain him as such his counsel inquired as to whether he had been 'convicted once for possession of marijuana'. He stated that he had on one occasion. Appellants complain of the cross-examination which follows and which is set forth in the footnote. 1 They claim that the prosecutor knew that the conviction in the District Court of the Territory had been appealed to the Territorial Circuit Court where Bohol was entitled to a trial de novo and that in that court a nolle prosequi was entered. There are four ready answers to this: (1) No proper objection was made. Counsel for appellants merely stated 'I object' without stating any grounds for his objection. (2) Defendant opened up the matter of prior conviction and the prosecutor was well within his rights in inquiring further into the matter. (3) Bohol admitted a second conviction and is here in no position to ask for a reversal because of his own failure to bring out the fact of the nolle prosequi. (4) For the purpose of impeachment it was proper to inquire into the prior conviction in the territorial district court. Wignmore on Evidence, 3d ed., volume 4, Sec. 1270, pages 538-539, and cases there cited. As to reversal of judgment, op. cit., volume 2, Sec. 523, page 616. Cf. op. cit., volume 2, Sec. 521, note 2, page 614.

The judgment is affirmed.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=1775.0
Romans 10:9
"That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved."

Get FREE 500GB cloud storage:
https://www.pcloud.com/welcome-to-pcloud/?discountcode=fDiE7jtC01VPbCIygaM67jZV



Share via facebook Share via linkedin Share via pinterest Share via reddit Share via twitter
 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
Powered by SMFPacks SEO Pro Mod | Sitemap
Mobile View
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2019, SimplePortal