Ayers v. United States
Decision Date | 22 April 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 9387.,9387. |
Citation | 58 F.2d 607 |
Parties | AYERS v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Walter L. Brown, Robert C. Knox, and L. B. Smead, all of El Dorado, Ark., for appellant.
W. N. Ivie, U. S. Atty., and G. T. Sullins, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Ft. Smith, Ark.
Before VAN VALKENBURGH and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, District Judge.
On October 19, 1931, an information was filed against the appellant and his wife, charging them jointly with three violations of the National Prohibition Act. The first two counts charged illegal possession of intoxicating liquor on June 27, 1931, and June 28, 1931, respectively. The third count charged the maintenance of a common nuisance on June 28, 1931. Pleas of not guilty were entered.
Upon the trial, at the close of the testimony, the appellant requested "that the court instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty as to the defendant J. T. Ayers, which request was refused by the court, and the defendant J. T. Ayers saved his exceptions." The jury acquitted the appellant upon the possession counts of the information, and convicted him upon the nuisance count, and he was thereafter sentenced to serve six months in jail. He thereupon appealed.
The assignment of errors is as follows:
The errors specified in the brief of the appellant are identical with those stated in the first five assignments.
The government contends that, since there was no sufficient motion for a directed verdict, and since the assignment of errors and specification of errors are insufficient and do not comply with the rules of this court, we are precluded from considering the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict.
That the specifications of error and the first five assignment of error — with which we are only concerned, the other two assignments having been abandoned Allen v. Hudson (C. C. A.) 35 F.(2d) 330 — are insufficient is obvious.
Referring to such assignments, Judge Gilbert, of the Ninth Circuit, in the case of Hecht v. Alfaro (C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 464, 466, said: See, also, Southern Surety Co. v. Lee County Bank, Title & Trust Co. (C. C. A. 8) 36 F.(2d) 220; Flanagan v. Benson (C. C. A. 8) 37 F.(2d) 69; Allen v. Hudson, supra; Stewart v. United States (C. C. A. 9) 12 F.(2d) 524.
Even if the denial of the appellant's motion in the court below for a directed verdict had been assigned and specified as error, it would not have entitled him to a review of the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. The applicable rule is stated in Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Horton (C. C. A. 8) 32 F.(2d) 851, 852, in which this court said:
See also, Public Utilities Corporation v. McNaughton (C. C. A. 8) 39 F.(2d) 7; Williams Bros. v. Heinemann (C. C. A. 8) 51 F.(2d) 1049; Rossi v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 9 F.(2d) 362, 365; Murphy v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 39 F.(2d) 412; Schindler v. United States (C. C. A. 9) 24 F.(2d) 204.
Notwithstanding this rule, this court, in order to prevent an injustice, may notice a plain error even in a civil case. United States v. Tennessee & Coosa R. Co., 176 U. S. 242, 256, 20 S. Ct. 370, 44 L. Ed. 452; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. McCune (C. C. A. 3) 174 F. 991, 992; Radetsky v. Gramm-Bernstein Motor Truck Co. (C. C. A. 8) 4 F.(2d) 965, 968; New York Life Insurance Co. v. Rankin (C. C. A. 8) 162 F. 103, 108. In criminal cases, in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice, a wider discretion to review errors not properly saved or presented for review is recognized.
In Wiborg v. United States, 163 U. S. 632, 658, 16 S. Ct. 1127, 1137, 41 L. Ed. 289, the Supreme Court said: In that case, the court examined the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of two of the defendants, and set aside the verdict as to them.
In Crawford v. United States, 212 U. S. 183, 194, 29 S. Ct. 260, 264, 53 L. Ed. 465, 15 Ann. Cas. 392, this language is found: See, also, Burns v. United States, 274 U. S. 328, 341, 47 S. Ct. 650, 71 L. Ed. 1077; Gambino v. United States, 275 U. S. 310, 319, 48 S. Ct. 137, 72 L. Ed. 293, 52 A. L. R. 1381.
In Lamento v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Wynne
...State v. Marshall, 115 Mo. 383, 22 S.W. 452; State v. Jackson, 95 Mo. 623, 8 S.W. 749; Lamento v. United States, 4 F.2d 901; Ayers v. United States, 58 F.2d 607. McKittrick, Attorney General, and Covell R. Hewitt, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. (1) The court did not err in perm......
-
Janko v. United States
...Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U. S. 552, 557, 61 S.Ct. 719, 85 L.Ed. 1037, affirming Helvering v. Hormel, 8 Cir., 111 F.2d 1; Ayers v. United States, 8 Cir., 58 F.2d 607, 609; United States v. 353 Cases, 8 Cir., 247 F.2d 473, 477; See Wiborg v. United States, 163 U.S. 632, 658, 16 S.Ct. 1127, 11......
-
Page v. United States
...29 S.Ct. 260, 53 L.Ed. 465; Whitney v. People of State of California, 274 U.S. 357, 380, 47 S.Ct. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095; Ayers v. United States, 8 Cir., 58 F.2d 607, 608-609. But the power of a reviewing court to consider a question first presented on appeal is an exception to the rule that su......
-
Helvering v. Rubinstein
...criminal or civil cases, even though not properly called to the attention of the trial court or saved for review. Ayers v. United States, 8 Cir., 58 F. 2d 607, 609 and cases cited. But this right to disregard the rule that an appellate court will not ordinarily consider issues of law or fac......