Case Name: Roger HARRIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1963-02-28
Citations: 331 F.2d 95
Docket Number: No. 17153
Parties: Roger HARRIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 331
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
Roger HARRIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 17153.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 2, 1962.
Decided Feb. 28, 1963.
Mr. William B. Bryant, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Max Frescoln, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appel-lee. Mr. Tim Murphy, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, Pretty-man, Senior Circuit Judge, and Wilbur K. Miller, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of bribery. It appears that two police officers called at appellant's apartment on a routine investigation of suspected illegal activity, i. e., gambling. Prior to their second call they advised their commanding of-fieer that they suspected, due to some conversation had with appellant upon the first call, that appellant might attempt a bribery. They left with the commanding officer all the money they had in their pockets. When they reached appellant's apartment they were admitted and, having entered, walked around and looked over the room. Appellant testified that one of the officers picked up a cigar and' said: "Well, I can't afford to smoke-these. I can't afford two for a quarter." Appellant then gave the officers six dollars apiece. He testified: "I said, 'You-all get you some cigars.' " The officers placed him under arrest, returned to headquarters, and gave their commanding officer the twelve dollars.
Upon the trial appellant defended upon the ground of entrapment and requested an instruction on that theory. The trial judge was of opinion that the-evidence was not sufficient to raise an issue as to entrapment, and declined to-give the instruction. We agree with the trial court.
Affirmed.