Reavis v. United States, 1538.
Decision Date | 20 December 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 1538.,1538. |
Parties | REAVIS v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
David Tant, of Oklahoma City, Okl., and W. F. Duncan, of Watonga, Okl., for appellant.
William C. Lewis, U.S.Atty., and Wade H. Loofbourrow, Asst.U.S.Atty., both of Oklahoma City, Okl.
Before LEWIS, PHILLIPS, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant and Marvin Carroll were charged by indictment: (1) with possession and control of a still set up for use by them in the manufacture of distilled spirits, said still not having been registered; (2) with making and fermenting mash fit for distillation or production of spirits or alcohol on premises other than those of a distillery authorized by law; (3) with defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States of the tax required by law to be paid upon spirits distilled by them, they being then and there engaged in carrying on the business of a distiller; and (4) with having in their possession and under their control distilled spirits, to-wit, whiskey the immediate containers of which did not then and there bear stamps denoting the quantity of distilled spirits therein contained evidencing payment of all internal revenue taxes imposed and required by law to be paid on said spirits, contrary to statutes in such cases made and provided. Carroll pleaded guilty. Appellant went to trial, was convicted on each of the four counts, and was sentenced. He appeals.
The only matter presented by appellant for our consideration is the charge to the jury by the District Judge on the subject of an alibi to which exception was saved thus: "to that part of the court's charge on the defendant's defense of an alibi, and particularly that part of the court's charge wherein the court criticized the defense of an alibi as being an unsatisfactory defense." As to the alibi the court said:
None of the evidence, verbatim or in substance, is included in the bill of exceptions except as it is embodied in the court's instructions to the jury. The bill of exceptions recites that: The Judge's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stump v. Bennett
...v. United States, 147 F. 426, 430-433 (8 Cir. 1906); Thomas v. United States, 213 F.2d 30, 32-34 (9 Cir. 1954); Reavis v. United States, 93 F.2d 307, 308 (10 Cir. 1937). And even the Iowa Supreme Court subsequent to the Stump case4 expressed doubt about future applications of the rule. Stat......
-
Arnold v. United States
...was that the conspiracy was formed on the 21st or 22d of March, 1935, at Arnold's apartment, and alone placed him there. In Reavis v. U. S., 10 Cir., 93 F.2d 307, it is said: "But it further appears that defendant's counsel in making his objection stated that defendant's testimony to establ......
-
Thomas v. United States
...agrees with the Glover case, United States v. Vigorite, 2 Cir., 67 F.2d 329. So also the Tenth Circuit in reversing in Reavis v. United States, 10 Cir., 93 F.2d 307, 308, and the Third Circuit in reversing in United States v. Marcus, 3 Cir., 166 F.2d 497, Thomas was denied certain instructi......