Rich v. United States, 5248.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Citation271 F. 566
Docket Number5248.
PartiesRICH v. UNITED STATES.
Decision Date28 February 1921

271 F. 566

RICH
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 5248.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 28, 1921


Rehearing Denied May 12, 1921. [271 F. 567]

Thomas B. Harvey, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.

N.C. Whaley, Asst. U.S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo. (James E. Carroll, U.S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for the United States.

Before HOOK and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and LEWIS, District Judge.

CARLAND, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff in error, hereafter defendant, was convicted and sentenced for having on July 28, 1917, transported in interstate commerce from East St. Louis, Ill., to St. Louis Mo., 80 pairs of shoes which had theretofore been stolen from the Big Four Railway platform in said East St. Louis, being a shipment made by French, Shriner & Urner, of Boston, Mass., to the J. G. Brandt Shoe Co., of St. Louis, Mo., said defendant at the time of said transportation well knowing said shoes to have been stolen, and for having said shoes in his possession with the knowledge aforesaid. 37 Stat. 670 (Comp. St. Secs. 8603, 8604).

Counsel for defendant contends that in the trial certain errors intervened which compel a reversal of the judgment of conviction. None of the 13 assignments of error present any question for review, except the ninth, and that alleged error was waived by defendant in the introduction of evidence after his demurrer to the evidence on the part of the prosecution had been overruled. Notwithstanding the want of proper assignments we will notice certain errors argued by counsel in this court.

The first of these alleged errors arose when the trial court permitted the witness Barron to testify that, when the defendant was arrested, there was found on his auto truck 25 bolts of silk shirting. Silk shirting was not mentioned in the counts upon which defendant was tried, but had been mentioned in two other counts, which had been dismissed by the prosecution before trial. The witness Churchill also was permitted to testify that 1,500 yards of silk shirting was on defendant's truck when he was arrested. Other witnesses were allowed to testify as to a statement made by the defendant to the officers who had him in charge, wherein defendant referred, not only to the shoes, but to the silk shirting. It is claimed that, there being no charge in the indictment in regard to the silk shirting, evidence in relation thereto was immaterial and prejudicial to the defendant. It is also claimed that it was an attempt on the part of the prosecution to prove the commission of an offense other than that charged in the [271 F. 568] indictment. The last contention mentioned is without merit. There was no evidence that the silk shirting had been stolen or that the defendant knew that it had been stolen. There is nothing in silk shirting itself that would render it criminal to transport it in an automobile or to have it in one's possession. The statement of the defendant, made to the officers which had him in charge, was voluntary so far as the evidence shows, and, the defendant himself having referred to the silk shirting, we do not think he can complain that the officers testified as to all the defendant said. The prosecution was entitled to the whole of the statement, and that was the theory upon which evidence of defendant's admission in relation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • Kroska v. United States, No. 9002.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 25, 1931
    ...Simpson v. U. S., 289 F. 188, 191, Ninth Circuit; and to the same effect, Trope v. U. S., 276 F. 348, 351, this court; Rich v. U. S., 271 F. 566, 570, this court; Haywood v. U. S., 268 F. 795, 798, Seventh Circuit. "Whether prejudice results from the erroneous admission of evidence at a tri......
  • Hewitt v. United States, No. 11388.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 27, 1940
    ...87. 10 See and compare Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 137, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 65 L.Ed. 185; Rich v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F. 566,...
  • Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States, No. 7492.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • June 28, 1937
    ...substantial prejudice to the complainant does not appear. Haywood v. United States, 268 F. 795, 798 (C.C.A.7); Rich v. United States, 271 F. 566, 569, 570 (C. Furthermore, we think the point was waived by failure of the appellants to move for a mistrial. Carter v. Tennessee (C.C. A.) 18 F.(......
  • Valli v. United States, No. 3244.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • January 26, 1938
    ...admitted is prejudicial is on the party complaining. Haywood et al. v. United States, 7 Cir., 268 F. 795; Rich v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F. 566; Hall v. United States, 8 Cir., 277 F. 19; Simpson v. United States, 9 Cir., 289 F. 188, certiorari denied 263 U.S. 707, 44 S.Ct. 35, 68 L.Ed. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 cases
  • Kroska v. United States, No. 9002.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 25, 1931
    ...Simpson v. U. S., 289 F. 188, 191, Ninth Circuit; and to the same effect, Trope v. U. S., 276 F. 348, 351, this court; Rich v. U. S., 271 F. 566, 570, this court; Haywood v. U. S., 268 F. 795, 798, Seventh Circuit. "Whether prejudice results from the erroneous admission of evidence at a tri......
  • Hewitt v. United States, No. 11388.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 27, 1940
    ...87. 10 See and compare Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 137, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 65 L.Ed. 185; Rich v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F. 566,...
  • Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States, No. 7492.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • June 28, 1937
    ...substantial prejudice to the complainant does not appear. Haywood v. United States, 268 F. 795, 798 (C.C.A.7); Rich v. United States, 271 F. 566, 569, 570 (C. Furthermore, we think the point was waived by failure of the appellants to move for a mistrial. Carter v. Tennessee (C.C. A.) 18 F.(......
  • Valli v. United States, No. 3244.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • January 26, 1938
    ...admitted is prejudicial is on the party complaining. Haywood et al. v. United States, 7 Cir., 268 F. 795; Rich v. United States, 8 Cir., 271 F. 566; Hall v. United States, 8 Cir., 277 F. 19; Simpson v. United States, 9 Cir., 289 F. 188, certiorari denied 263 U.S. 707, 44 S.Ct. 35, 68 L.Ed. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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