E. H. White v. United States

Appellant was convicted of a violation of Section 174 of 21 U.S.C.A. He complains that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, notwithstanding his admission of possession of the drug heroin and the Government’s reliance on the presumption contained in said Section to the effect that possession of the narcotic drug shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains that possession to the satisfaction of the jury.

The constitutionality of this provision of the law has been set at rest. Yee Hem v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 178 , 45 S.Ct. 470 , 69 L.Ed. 904 ; Gonzales v. United States, 9 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 870 . Appellant at the trial in the District Court testified that the party from whom he received the heroin told him that he procured it in Los Angeles. He now asserts that this testimony was sufficient to remove the presumption contained in the statute and to establish that appellant could not have known that the drug was imported. Evidently the jury did not believe appellant and were not satisfied with this explanation, as is evidenced by their verdict of guilty.

Appellant next complains that the trial court erred in…