Hall v. United States

Decision Date19 November 1968
Docket NumberNo. 25627.,25627.
Citation403 F.2d 649
PartiesCharles Anthony HALL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Robert M. Smith, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

Samuel S. Forman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.

Before DYER and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges, and CABOT, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

In November 1967 Hall was convicted by a jury of stealing a General Electric two-way radio unit while it was moving as part of an interstate shipment from Lynchburg, Virginia, to Gainesville, Florida, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 659. The trial judge imposed an eighteen months confinement sentence and this appeal in forma pauperis followed.

We have carefully considered the three claimed errors urged by the appellant as grounds for reversal. We find that each is without merit and affirm.

The first error assigned is the court's refusal to permit examination of the investigating F.B.I. agent as to his knowledge of offers of immunity to government witnesses. As framed, the question called for hearsay. Counsel did not follow it up with the agent Mr. Kyte, or any other witness. The trial court did not abuse its broad discretion as to the scope of examination, under the circumstances present. Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, 5 Cir.1965, 351 F.2d 702, aff. 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1966), rehearing denied 389 U.S. 889, 88 S.Ct. 11, 19 L. Ed.2d 197; Roberson v. United States, 5 Cir. 1957, 249 F.2d 737, 72 A.L.R.2d 434, cert. denied 356 U.S. 919, 78 S.Ct. 704, 2 L.Ed.2d 715 (1958); Feutralle v. United States, 5 Cir. 1954, 209 F.2d 159.

The second point goes to the sufficiency of the evidence. We have reviewed the record and consider the evidence ample to sustain the verdict. In any event, the question was not preserved for appellate review by renewal of appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence. Wilkins v. United States, 5 Cir.1967, 376 F.2d 552, 563.

Finally, we hold that no error is demonstrated with respect to an additional instruction given by the court when the jury, during its deliberations, requested further instructions. The instruction was to the effect that it was not necessary for the government to prove theft from the trailer-truck, as alleged in the indictment, so long as the jury was satisfied that the theft occurred while the radio was moving in interstate commerce, or, as the court expressed it,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States v. Pitts, 28729 Summary Calendar.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • June 18, 1970
    ...review the sufficiency question except to prevent a "manifest miscarriage of justice" or "plain error". See e. g., Hall v. U. S., 5 Cir., 1968, 403 F.2d 649; Clark v. U. S., 5 Cir., 1961, 293 F.2d 445; Fallen v. U. S., 5 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 946. However, we have also held that this waiver ......
  • United States v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • November 26, 1968
  • Kemp v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 26, 1969
    ...as to the sufficiency of the evidence of identification of Appellant, such question was not properly preserved. In Hall v. United States (5th Cir. 1968), 403 F.2d 649, involving theft of goods in interstate commerce where Appellant raised the question of sufficiency of evidence, this Court ......
  • Kemp v. United States, 25675.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 2, 1970
    ...regardless of whether such motion was made at an earlier stage of the trial. Regardless of the applicability of Hall v. United States (5th Cir. 1968), 403 F. 2d 649, under Rule 29(c) we have reviewed the record and consider the evidence ample to sustain the verdict. As pointed out in the or......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT