Case ID: f2d_2/html/0598-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JORDAN v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    November 5, 1924.)
    No. 4239.
    1. Criminal law <@=>37—Offer to purchase liquor is not entrapment.
    ' Offer to purchase intoxicating liquor, whereby defendant is given opportunity to violate law by making sale, does not constitute entrapment.
    2. Criminal law <@=>1167(2) — Conviction on particular count need not be reviewed, where sentence imposed was authorized under another count alone.
    In prosecution and conviction for sale of intoxicating liquor, where sentence imposed is not greater than that which could have been imposed for unlawful sale alone, conviction on count for maintaining nuisance need not be reviewed.
    In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia; William I. Grubb, Judge.
    Charlie Jordan was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and he brings error.
    Affirmed.
    Davis S. Atkinson, of Savannah, Ga., for plaintiff in error.
    Chas. E. Donnelly, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Savannah, Ga. (F. G. Boatright, U. S. Atty., of Cordele, Ga., and Chas. L. Redding, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Savannah, Ga., on the brief), for the United States.
    Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, in violation of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138¼ et seq.). He admits the sale,’ but relies upon entrapment by the prohibition agents as a defense. The evidence shows without conflict that the government witnesses did no more than offer to buy liquor, and thus afford the plaintiff in error an opportunity to violate the law. This does not constitute entrapment. Ritter v. United States (C. C. A.) 293 F. 187.

Plaintiff in error was also convicted on a count which charged him with maintaining a nuisance, likewise in violation of the National Prohibition Act. The assignments of error which relate-to this offense need not be considered, as the sentence was not greater than could have been imposed for the unlawful sale.

The judgment is affirmed.