Krashowitz v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 July 1922 |
| Docket Number | 1967. |
| Citation | 282 F. 599 |
| Parties | KRASHOWITZ v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
B. J Pettigrew, of Charleston, W. Va., F. N. Alderson, of Summersville, W. Va., and J. S. Horan, of Charleston, W. Va for plaintiff in error.
J. N Kenna, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Charleston, W.Va. (Elliott Northcott, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for the United States.
Before KNAPP and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and WEBB, District Judge.
A. J Krashowitz, plaintiff in error, herein referred to as defendant, was tried on an indictment containing three counts. The first two charge him with second offenses under the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305), one for unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and the other for unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, both after a former conviction; the third count charges him with maintaining a common nuisance as defined by that Act. The jury found him guilty of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor after a previous conviction for the same offense, and of maintaining a common nuisance as charged. Sentence of fine and imprisonment followed.
As the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is virtually conceded, we omit a recital of the facts and turn at once to the grounds relied upon for a reversal of the judgment.
The former indictment was allowed to be read into the record, and this is urged as error, because it charged another offense besides the possession of intoxicating liquor, to which the defendant had pleaded guilty. The contention plainly is without merit, and especially so as the government showed by the record of the former trial that the other count of the indictment was nol. prossed. It is impossible to see that defendant was prejudiced by anything which occurred in this connection.
On cross-examination defendant was asked about other and unrelated violations of the liquor laws, and this also is claimed to be error. But the rule is well settled, and this court has more than once held, that on the trial of an indictment for violating the liquor laws of the United States the defendant may be asked on cross-examination if he has not been guilty of other like offenses, on the issue of his credibility as a witness. Fields v. United States, 221 F. 242, 245, 137 C.C.A. 98; Christopoulo v. United States, 230 F. 788, 791, 145 C.C.A. 98; Wharton's Crim. Evidence, p. 1666; 1 Wigmore, p. 444.
Another exception is based on the refusal of the trial court to permit defendant's wife to testify in his behalf. But Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 41 Sup.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214, which the court followed, is conclusive that the ruling was right, and discussion would be quite out of place.
The remaining assignments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dowdy v. United States
...Ct. 193, 55 L. Ed. 102; Barton v. U. S. (C. C. A. 4th) 25 F.(2d) 967; Fisher v. U. S. (C. C. A. 4th) 32 F.(2d) 602, 604; Krashowitz v. U. S. (C. C. A. 4th) 282 F. 599. The federal courts have also held that where two or more defendants are jointly indicted and jointly tried, the wife of one......
-
Scaffidi v. United States, 2336.
...showing that he had been convicted of a similar offense upon the authority of the Fields Case. In the case of Krashowitz v. United States, 282 F. 599, 601 (C. C. A. 4th, 1922), the defendant was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, second offense. On cross-examination ......
-
Brunner v. United States
...Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 195, 41 S.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214; Fasulo v. United States, 9 Cir., 7 F.2d 961; Krashowitz v. United States, 4 Cir., 282 F. 599, 601; Slick v. United States, 7 Cir., 1 F.2d 897, 899; Liberato v. United States, 9 Cir., 13 F.2d 564, 566; Barton v. United ......
-
Tinsley v. United States
...the rule of the common law that a wife was not a competent witness in behalf of the husband. In the Fourth Circuit, in Krashowitz v. United States (C. C. A.) 282 F. 599, and in Fisher v. United States (C. C. A.) 32 F.(2d) 602, it was held that on the authority of the Jin Fuey Moy Case defen......