Case Name: SIMMONS v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1924-07-02
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 668
Docket Number: No. 4015
Parties: SIMMONS v. UNITED STATES
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 668–668

Head Matter:
No. 706
SIMMONS v. UNITED STATES
U. S. Appeals, Sixth Circuit
No. 4015.
Decided July 2, 1924
333. CRIMINAL LAW — 1. Defense of entrapment not seriously considered when volume of narcotic business shows felonious intent.
2. Conviction of one plainly guilty not reversed for minor errors.
3. Entrapment not shown by sale of morphine to addict in government service.
933. POISONS — Requiring patients to produce certificates of incurable diseases under Tennessee statute, conflicing with federal act, held no defense.
Attorneys — A. M. Tillman, for Simmons; Howard B. Shofner, for United States.

Opinion:
DENISON, C. J.
Epitomized Opinion
Dr. Simimons, a practicing physician of Nashville, Tenn., was convicted of furnishing morphine in violation of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act (Comp. St. 6287g-6287q). It appeared that during nine months he had given to 108 persons, all of whom were morphine addicts, a total of 4,095 prescriptions, calling for 79,592 grains of morphine. It was his custom to recognize 8 grains per day as a maximum, and to give prescriptions intended to cover this supply for a period of six days. In affirming the conviction, the Court of Appeals held:
1. Where, in nine months, defendant, a physician, gave 108 persons 4,095 prescriptions, calling for 79,592 grains of morphine, his volume of business conclusively shows his intent, and defense of entrapment need not be seriously considered.
2. Where defendant was plainly guilty, a conviction will not be set aside, even if there were errors which would require a reversal in a doubtful case.
3. In a prosecution under the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act (Comp. St. 6287g-6287q), that prescriptions were given to addict, who was in pay of government, acting as a detective, held not to show forbidden entrapment.
4. That physician required his patients to produce a certificate that they were afflicted with incurable diseases, as required by Acts Tenn. 1919, c. 105, and regulations thereunder, held not to constitute exculpatory good faith, within Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act (Comp. St. 6287g-6287q), as state law conflicts with federal act.