Franklin Santos Bohol and Henry Torres Dias v. United States

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. 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.…