Ballestrero

Ballestrero v. United States

Good Law
5 F.2d 503·1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2701
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 20, 1925No. 4403California447 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted under an indictment which alleged that he had violated the Harrison Anti-Narcotie Act, as amended February 24, 1919 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 6287g), “in that the said defendant did then and there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously purchase, sell, dispense and distribute a certain derivative of coca leaves, to wit, one bindle of cocaine containing approximately eighteen grains, which said cocaine was not then and there originally in and from the original stamped package.”

It is contended that the indictment is fatally defective, in that it fails to charge that the defendant had not registered and paid the special tax required by the act, or to charge that he was a person required to register and pay the special tax. To this it is sufficient to point to the fact that in view of the offense charged it was not necessary to allege or prove that the defendant was required to register or to pay a tax or to allege other facts than those which are set forth in the indictment. Sam Wong v. United States (C. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 969 ; Coleman v. United States (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 243 ; United States v. Wong Sing, 260 U. S. 18 , 43 S. Ct. 7 ,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.