Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
COLLETTI v. UNITED STATES, 1931 — 53 F.2d 1017 · caselaw · US
General
COLLETTI v. UNITED STATES
53 F.2d 1017·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1931
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
COLLETTI v. UNITED STATES.
No. 5953.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 8, 1931.
E. O. Ricketts, of Columbus, Ohio, for appellant.
Hugh K. Martin, of Columbus, Ohio (Haveth E. Mau, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON, HICKS, and HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Prosecution under the Narcotie Drugs Import and Export Act (section 174, tit. 21, USCA). The only meritorious question is whether there was substantial evidence to go to the jury. A complete extrajudicial confession was shown by testimony, the credibility of which was for the jury. It is urged that the corpus delicti was otherwise not proved. That corpus consisted in this case of the possession by Colletti of opium found in a hotel room occupied by him and a woman registered by him as his wife. The opium was in her hat box; he claimed not to know about it. The entire proof, outside of the confession, afforded, we think, a substantial basis for the jury to infer, as it did, that he and the woman were jointly engaged in a narcotic transportation venture then approaching completion.
The possession by defendant, once established, was enough to support the statutory inference that the opium had been unlawfully imported into the United States. Copperthwaite v. U. S. (C. C. A. 6) 37 F.(2d) 846.
The conduct of the trial by the judge, including his mistake as to one item in stating the evidence, presents nothing prejudicial, upon this record.
The judgment is affirmed.