Raffour v. United States
| Citation | 284 F. 720 |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | 3901. |
| Parties | RAFFOUR v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Leo V Youngworth and Harry J. McClean, both of Los Angeles, Cal for plaintiff in error.
Joseph C. Burke, U.S. Atty., and John R. Layng, Sp. Asst. U.S Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
Raffour plaintiff in error, was convicted under three counts of an information which charged him with the unlawful possession, for beverage purposes, of certain intoxicating liquor, and with unlawfully maintaining a common nuisance at a designated place where certain brandy and wine containing alcohol in excess of one-half of 1 per cent. were kept, sold, and bartered for beverage purposes.
Defendant was represented by counsel at the trial, and no exceptions were taken to the rulings upon evidence or to the instructions of the court, and no requests to instruct were presented to the court. Reversal is here asked because of the omission of the lower court to instruct the jury that defendant was presumed to be innocent and because of omission to explain what constitutes a reasonable doubt.
The record shows that the court charged that the law requires in every criminal case that the defendant be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury were the exclusive judges of fact and the credibility of the witnesses, and that the court, with considerable detail, stated the matters included in the statutory offenses charged. There was no explicit explanation of what constitutes a reasonable doubt but, in the absence of a request for such explanation, it was not error to fail to give it. State v. Smith, 65 Conn. 283, 31 A. 206; United States v. Monongahela Bridge Co. (D.C.) 160 F. 712; People v. Christensen, 85 Cal. 568, 24 P. 888; People v. Graney, 91 Mich. 646, 52 N.W. 66. Furthermore, as the court charged that it was incumbent upon the government to establish guilt by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in the absence of a request for a specific charge upon the presumption of innocence, we cannot believe that defendant was prejudiced. In Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 15 Sup.Ct. 394, 39 L.Ed. 481, the trial court was asked to charge concerning the presumption of innocence, but refused, although it did instruct that the jury must be satisfied of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that, where there was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stassi v. United States
...264 F. 593, 595 (6 C. C. A.); Silverberg v. United States, 4 F.(2d) 908, 909 (5 C. C. A.). Failure to define reasonable doubt, Raffour v. United States, 284 F. 720 (9 C. C. A.). Failure to charge that proof must show that the crime was willful, when statute denounced only willful acts, Ripp......
-
Tudor v. United States
...F. 605, 617; Henry Ching v. United States, 9 Cir., 264 F. 639, 642; Cabiale v. United States, 9 Cir., 276 F. 769, 772; Raffour v. United States, 9 Cir., 284 F. 720, 721; Deupree v. United States, 9 Cir., 2 F.2d 44, 46; Sam Wong v. United States, 9 Cir., 2 F.2d 969, 970; Feigin v. United Sta......
-
Pitts v. State
...355 U.S. 957, 78 S.Ct. 542, 2 L.Ed.2d 532 (1958); Spevak v. United States, 158 F.2d 594, 598 (4th Cir. 1946); Raffour v. United States, 284 F. 720, 721 (9th Cir. 1922); Sylvia v. United States, 264 F. 593, 595 (6th Cir. 1920); United States ex rel. Campagne v. Follette, 306 F.Supp. 1255, 12......
-
Evans v. United States
...of innocence, it is clearly the law that this is not error unless the accused specifically request such an instruction. Raffour v. United States, 9 Cir., 284 F. 720; Sylvia v. United States, 6 Cir., 264 F. 593. Compare the holdings of this court in Troutman v. United States, 10 Cir., 100 F.......