Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Alfred Lee Matherne, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 397 F.2d 406
June 28, 1968 Certiorari Denied December 9, 1968
James David McNeill, New Orleans, La., for appellant.
John C. Ciolino, Harry Connick, H. P. Rowley, III, New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before WISDOM and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges, and COMISKEY, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The appellant was found guilty on two counts in violation of Title 26 U.S.C. §§ 4704(a) and 4705(a) relative to narcotics. The contention on appeal is that the district court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress evidence of the sale as being the product of an illegal entrapment, and secondly in the denial of the appellant's motion for a judgment of acquittal since the facts established as a matter of law an unlawful entrapment.
The district judge submitted to the jury the issue of entrapment as a fact question with proper instructions. We agree that the defense of entrapment was a fact question and should have gone, and did go, to the jury who resolved it against the defendant. See Hannah v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 785 [May 2, 1968]; Suarez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1962, 309 F.2d 709; Kivette v. United States, 5 Cir. 1956, 230 F.2d 749.
No error appearing, the judgment of conviction is
Affirmed.