Rudolph Henderson v. United States, 402 F.2d 755 (5th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Rudolph Henderson v. United States, 402 F.2d 755 (5th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: United States v. A. D. Allison (ca9, 1969-06-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. A. D. Allison
9th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Henderson v. United States, 402 F.2d 755 (5th Cir. 1968); Mason v. Mathiasen Tanker Indus., 298 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir. 1962); Goddard v. United States, 131 F.2d 220 221 (5th Cir. 1942). “[M]ost courts hold * * * that a conviction too remote in time may be excluded by the judge if in his discretion he finds that under the circumstances it lacks probative value.” C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rudolph HENDERSON, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
25741_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 6, 1968.
402 F.2d 755
A. G. Condon, Jr., Pensacola, Fla., for appellant., Clinton Ashmore, U. S. Atty., Stewart J. Carrouth, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tallahassee, Fla., for appellee.
Coleman, Morgan, Per Curiam, Tuttle.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Upon careful consideration of the record, we conclude that there was ample evidence to warrant submission of the issue of guilt of this appellant to the jury. There was sufficient evidence of Henderson’s dominion over the disputed alcoholic beverages to support the jury’s finding that he was guilty of the unlawful possession forbidden by Section 5604(a) (1) and Section 5205(a) (2), 26 U.S.C.A.

We also conclude that the cross examination of the defendant, who took the stand, relating to prior convictions was neither too broad nor did it relate to convictions too far removed in point of time. See Beaudine v. United States (5 Cir., 1966), 368 F.2d 417, 421, and Roberson v. United States (5 Cir., 1957), 249 F.2d 737. Also as to the breadth of the inquiry, see McCormick, Evidence, Section 43, at 92-93 (1954). The judgment is affirmed.