Finley v. United States, 16429.
| Decision Date | 19 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 16429.,16429. |
| Citation | 246 F.2d 604 |
| Parties | Grovene James FINLEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. Walter Owens, Jr., Columbus, Ga., Ray & Owens, Columbus, Ga., for appellant.
Robert B. Thompson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., Frank O. Evans, U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for the United States.
Before BORAH, RIVES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant appeals from his conviction of possessing and transporting nontaxpaid distilled spirits, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 5008(b) (1), 5642.
The action of the trial judge in sustaining a prosecution objection to a question calling for an obviously hearsay answer was eminently proper in view of appellant's inability to present any acceptable theory under which the answer would have been admissible. Horne v. United States, 5 Cir., 246 F.2d 83. Actually, the particular question was answered anyway and no motion to strike was made or instruction to disregard given.
Appellant's present complaint that no instruction was given to the jury on the defense of alibi does not require consideration by us since there was neither an objection nor a requested instruction at the trial. Fed.Rules Crim. Proc. rule 30, 18 U.S.C.A.; McDonald v. United States, 5 Cir., 200 F.2d 502; White v. United States, 5 Cir., 200 F.2d 509, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 999, 73 S.Ct. 1142, 97 L.Ed. 1405. Certainly on this record, where little or no evidence is present to support such a charge even if requested, and there is no basis for feeling that an injustice has been done it cannot be said that the failure of the Trial Judge to give it sua sponte is such a plain error as should be noticed under F.R.Crim.P. 52(b). See Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 208 F.2d 447, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 928, 74 S.Ct. 531, 98 L.Ed. 1081.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 66 Civ. 1532.
... ... and John Keats, Defendants ... No. 66 Civ. 1532 ... United States District Court S. D. New York ... June 25, 1966. 256 F. Supp ... ...
-
Eisenschiml v. Fawcett Publications
... ... FAWCETT PUBLICATIONS, Inc., Defendant-Appellee ... No. 11830 ... United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit ... July 17, 1957 ... Rehearing ... ...
-
Nash v. CBS, INC., 86 C 511.
... ... CBS, INC., et al., Defendants ... No. 86 C 511 ... United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D ... October 11, 1990.750 F ... ...
-
Roper v. United States
...is plain error under rule 52(b), see Goldsby v. United States, 1895, 160 U.S. 70, 77, 16 S.Ct. 216, 40 L.Ed. 343; Finley v. United States, 5 Cir. 1957, 246 F.2d 604, especially where as here the factual foundation for an alibi charge seems obscure, to say the least. Defendant says that if h......