United States v. Leslie Eugene Allen, 468 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Leslie Eugene Allen, 468 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rankin v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
See Lubbock Feed Lots, Inc. v. Iowa Beef Processors, 630 F.2d 250, 266 (5th Cir.1980); U.S. v. Allen, 468 F.2d 612, 613 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 935 , 93 S.Ct. 1389 , 35 L.Ed.2d 599 (1973); U.S. v. Annoreno, 460 F.2d 1303, 1307-08 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 852 , 93 S.Ct. 64 , 34 L.Ed.2d 95 (1972); Commonwealth v. Covil, 474 Pa. 375 , 378 A.2d 841, 845 (1977) (ultimately leaving the timing of a limiting instruction within the discretion of the trial court).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Covil (2×)
Pa. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
Troutman v. United States, 100 F.2d 628 (10th Cir. 1938); see United States v. Allen, 468 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1972), cert, denied, 410 U.S. 935 , 93 S.Ct. 1389 , 35 L.Ed.2d 599 (1973) (no error in postponing instruction until general charge); United States v. Annoreno, 460 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 852 , 93 S.Ct. 64 , 34 L.Ed.2d 95 (1972) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Leslie Eugene ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant
72-1460.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Oct 24, 1972.
468 F.2d 612
Philip C. Friday, Jr., Austin, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant., William S. Sessions, U. S. Atty., Jeremiah Handy, James W. Kerr, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Gewin, Thornberry, Clark.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury on two counts charging him with knowingly passing counterfeit currency with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. Finding appellant’s allegations of error to be without merit, we affirm the conviction.

First, appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence. Secondly, appellant asserts that the trial court erroneously permitted the Government to impeach its own witness, Holt, by means of testimony of another Government witness, Lockwood, there being no proof[*613] that Holt’s testimony surprised the Government and damaged its case. While appellant’s court-appointed trial counsel, [1] said nothing about the Government’s use of the testimony to impeach Holt, he did object to its admission on grounds of hearsay.

Thirdly, appellant claims that, in addition to the limiting instruction in the court’s charge, he was entitled to an instruction contemporaneous to Lockwood’s testimony limiting it to its impeachment value.

After a very careful study of the record and consideration of the very able and vigorous presentation made to us by counsel in his oral argument and brief, we are unable to say that error was committed.

Affirmed.

1

. Appellant is represented by different court-appointed counsel on appeal.