Pemberton v. United States
| Decision Date | 08 April 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 1127.,1127. |
| Citation | 76 F.2d 596 |
| Parties | PEMBERTON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Karl V. King, of Salt Lake City, Utah (Samuel A. King, of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellant.
John S. Boyden, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Salt Lake City, Utah (Dan B. Shields, U. S. Atty., of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Scott M. Matheson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Cedar City, Utah, on the brief), for the United States.
Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and KENNEDY, District Judge.
Appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment in the penitentiary on an indictment charging perjury. 18 USCA § 231. The substance of appellant's assignments of error is: (1) The Court erred in refusing to grant his motion to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. (2) The Court erred in denying his motion for a new trial upon the grounds specified therein, particularly upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The first assignment presents a question of law, which calls for an examination of the record, not for the purpose of weighing conflicting testimony, but only to determine whether there was some evidence, competent and substantial, before the jury, fairly tending to sustain the verdict. Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 619, 40 S. Ct. 17, 63 L. Ed. 1173; Stilson v. United States, 250 U. S. 583, 588, 40 S. Ct. 28, 63 L. Ed. 1154; Goldman v. United States, 245 U. S. 474, 477, 38 S. Ct. 166, 62 L. Ed. 410.
A motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon is not open to review in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion. Century Indemnity Co. v. Shakespeare (C. C. A. 10) 74 F.(2d) 392, 394. In order that we may pass upon the second assignment and decide whether the court abused its discretion in overruling appellant's motion for new trial we must examine the evidence.
The bill of exceptions herein was lodged after the term at which the judgment appealed from was entered and after the lapse of further time allowed for that purpose by order of court. The court below was without authority to allow the bill of exceptions. This court passed upon this situation in Davis v. United States, 67 F. (2d) 737, 738:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Johnson, 7500
...court's action for the purpose of determining whether or not it abused its discretion in reaching the conclusion it did. Pemberton v. United States, 10 Cir., 76 F.2d 596. In determining whether or not the trial court abused its discretion, we consider not only the things which it considered......
-
In re Penglase Sand & Gravel Co.
... ... that the vessel was of such a character as was required to be enrolled by the laws of the United States and that the conditional sales contract was not good as against the trustee under the ... ...