Case Name: Edward E. BRISCOE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1964-07-23
Citations: 336 F.2d 960
Docket Number: No. 18346
Parties: Edward E. BRISCOE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 336
Pages: 960–962

Head Matter:
Edward E. BRISCOE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 18346.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 28, 1964.
Decided July 23, 1964.
Petition for Rehearing en Bane Denied Sept. 19, 1964.
Mr. Warren E. Magee (appointed by this court), Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Daniel J. McTague, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Gerald A. Messerman, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Danaher, Wright and McGowan, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appellant was convicted of violations of the narcotics laws and now urges various grounds for reversal which we need but mention.
We find no occasion to reverse by reason of the instructions under which the defense of entrapment was submitted for determination by the jury. Appellant argues that a police officer should not have been allowed to testify that he performed a "field test" which yielded evidence that the samples contained a narcotic alkaloid of the opium group, but no objection to the testimony had been voiced at trial. He claims prejudice because of certain answers elicited upon cross examination of appellant about his wife. Apart from the broad discretion accorded to the trial judge in his control of cross examination, no objection had been raised at the time. He contends most strongly that there was insufficient material to permit of quantitative chemical analysis, and thus there was a failure of adequate proof of the exact amount of the heroin in the bags sold by the appellant. Again, there had been no objection to the admissibility of the evidence as elicited from the Government chemist, and we do not pursue the point on appeal.
Upon the record as a whole, we perceive no adequate basis for departure from the harmless error rule.
Affirmed.
. In tlie charge, the trial judge referred to the ensnarement of "the innocent and law-abiding." As the Government appears to concede, this apparent limitation of the availability of the defense was not proper under Hansford v. United States, 112 U.S.AppD.C. 359, 362, 303 F.2d 219, 222 (en banc, 1962); and see generally, Smith v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. -, 331 F.2d 784 (en banc, 1964). No objection was made to the charge which, on the whole, we believe was not misleading.