Sue Hoo Chee v. United States

Appellant was convicted by a jury of violating 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 in that he concealed smoking opium. He appeals from the judgment which followed.

Appellant claims that the United States Attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct in that he questioned witnesses as to whether or not appellant’s wife was a user of opium and that such inquiry was irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial and that evidence to the effect that appellant operated a gambling house was subject to the same objections.

While appellant was on the stand he testified that he had never come in contact with opium in any form and had never seen a bindle of opium, that his wife was ill the evening of his arrest. The United States Attorney asked if the illness was not from smoking opium. The question was not allowed to be answered. Later on defense counsel reopened the subject by asking appellant’s wife whether or not she was a user of opiates, to which she very positively answered in the negative.

Thereafter, the United States Attorney elicited evidence from the narcotic officer who participated in the arrest of appellant to the effect that the officer could tell by observing a person whether or not the person…