U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1947

Levine v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided October 23, 1947

163 F.2d 992; 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 2367 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Aaron Kravitch, of Savannah, Ga., for appellant., J. Saxton Daniel, U. S. Atty., and Green B. Everitt, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Savannah, Ga., and T. Reuben Burnside, Asst U. S. Atty., of Augusta, Ga., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Wyatt v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1960)
James Ivey Wyatt v. United States (5th Cir. 1959)
Katherine Idell Jackson v. United States (5th Cir. 1958)
United States v. Lutwak. United States v. Knoll. United States v. Treitler (7th Cir. 1952)
Alford v. Territory of Hawaii (9th Cir. 1953)
Shores v. United States (8th Cir. 1949)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Convicted of having transported a woman from Mobile, Alabama, to Savannah, Georgia, for the purpose of prostitution and debauchery, and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary, the defendant has appealed, making three points against the judgment: (1) That the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, (2) that his wife was incompetent to testify against him, and her testimony on which defendant was convicted was inadmissible, and (3) that the court erred in refusing defendant’s requests to charge.

On the first and second points, it is sufficient to say that the evidence given by defendant’s wife, the instrument and victim of his debauching activities, was amply sufficient, if believed, to sustain the verdict, and that it is not an open question in this court that a wife in such a case is a competent witness against her husband.1 Appellant stands no better on his complaint that in refusing his requests to charge the court committed reversible error. The requested charge, that appellant’s wife was an accomplice and her evidence must be considered in the light of that fact, was properly refused.2 As to the requested charge defining the elements of the offense, there was no error in declining to give it both because the general charge was sufficient and because it was in substance given on defendant’s request made at the conclusion of the general charge.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Denning v. United States, 5 Cir., 247 F. 463. Cf. United States v. Mitchell, 2 Cir., 137 F.2d 1006.

Hays v. United States, 8 Cir., 231 F. 106; United States v. Holte, 236 U. S. 140, 35 S.Ct. 271, 59 L.Ed. 504, L. R.A.1915D, 281.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.