Court Opinion

ID: 9458835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:02:52.146534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:54.586442
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). There are three assignments of error. The procedure followed by the district court in selecting the petit jury was proper. There was no error in the. refusal of the court to recess so as to recall a witness whose testimony had theretofore been completed. The remark made by the prosecutor regarding the alleged incorrectness of *908the methadone records on witness King does not rise to the level of error. Additionally, we conclude that.the charge given on reasonable doubt was sufficient when taken as a whole to convey the proper concept of reasonable doubt to the jury. There was no violation of the reasonable doubt definition of Holland v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 121, 140, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150, although the district court charged in terms of refraining rather than hesitating to act. It follows that the court did not err in refusing to give the charge requested by appellant on reasonable doubt.
Affirmed.