James Mims v. United States
Opinion
Opinion
Barnes, J.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of an illegal sale of narcotics ( 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 ). He urges reversal because:
(1) The District Court failed to instruct the jury that the testimony of (a) an accomplice, and (b) a perjurer, not an accomplice, must be viewed with extreme caution;
(2) The District Court refused to allow appellant “to inquire into the business relationship” between appellant and the father of his alleged accomplice.
We fail to find either ground a valid basis for reversal.
7. Testimony of an Accomplice.
As to the first ground, appellant’s then counsel (not representing him on this appeal) failed to request any specific instruction on the subject. This is conceded in appellant’s brief. Having so failed, counsel cannot now claim error. This we have repeatedly held. Zamloch v. United States, 9 Cir., 1952, 193 F.2d 889, 892 ; Himmelfarb v. United States, 9 Cir., 1948, 175 F.2d 924, 926, 944 . The case of Freed v. United States, 1920, 49 App.D.C. 392 , 266 F. 1012 , cited by appellant is not apposite, for there the instruction was requested and refused, and the short general admonition given properly held insufficient.