Case Name: SHAPIRO v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1922-11-24
Citations: 284 F. 851
Docket Number: No. 3925
Parties: SHAPIRO v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 284
Pages: 851–852

Head Matter:
SHAPIRO v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 24, 1922.)
No. 3925.
Criminal law <@=>1036(5) — Admission of hearsay evidence held not reversible error.
Where a question asked a witness gives notice that a responsive answer may be hearsay, as for a statement of the reputed owner of a place and objection is not made nntil after answer, overruling of the objection is not reversible error.
<£=>For other oases see same topic & KEY-NTJMBEK. In all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas; William R. Smith, Judge.
Criminal prosecution by the United States against C. J. Shapiro. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
W. H. Fryer, of El Paso, Tex. (Davis, Jackson & Fryer, of El Paso, Tex., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
H. R. Gamble, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (John D. Hartman, U. S. Atty., of San Antonio, Tex., and N. J. Morrison, Asst. U. S. Atty., of El Paso, Tex., on the brief), for the United States.
Before WAEKER, BRYAN and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
WALKER, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff in error, C. J. Shapiro (herein called the defendant), was convicted on a charge made by in formation that he unlawfully had in his possession described intoxicating liquor. There was evidence to prove the finding of such intoxicating liquor at a place in El Paso which was called "Shep's Auto Stand," that defendant was called "Shep," and that he was in possession and charge of that place.
A witness for the prosecution was asked, "Who is reputed to be the owner of Shep's Auto Stand?" After the witness had answered: "Mr. Shapiro, I suppose," the defendant objected to the answer as being hearsay, and excepted to the action of the court in overruling the objection. The question gave notice that a responsive answer to it might be hearsay testimony. - This being so, it was not reversible error for the court to overrule the objection, which was not made until after the question was answered. Bailey v. Warner, 118 Fed. 395, 55 C. C. A. 329.
The court properly overruled the defendant's motion for an instructed verdict in his favor, on the ground that there was no evidence that he was in possession of the liquor. Evidence adduced was such as to support a finding that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged. The record shows no reversible error.
The judgment is affirmed.