Terrell v. United States
Citation | 6 F.2d 498 |
Decision Date | 15 June 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 2343.,2343. |
Parties | TERRELL v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Lively & Stambaugh and Lon H. Kelly, all of Charleston, W. Va., for plaintiff in error.
Elliott Northcott, U. S. Atty., of Huntington, W. Va., and B. J. Pettigrew, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Charleston, W. Va.
Before WOODS, WADDILL, and ROSE, Circuit Judges.
The defendant was convicted on an indictment charging that he "on the ______ day of ______, in the year 1924, and from thence until and on the ______ day of ______, in the year 19__, at Charleston aforesaid, in the county of Kanawha * * * unlawfully and feloniously did carry on the business of a retail liquor dealer, without having paid the special tax therefor as required by law."
Error is assigned in overruling the demurrer to the indictment for indefiniteness in the statement of the date of the offense. The indictment advised the defendant of the charge that in 1924, before November 24 of that year, when the indictment was returned by the grand jury, he had been carrying on the business of a retail liquor dealer without paying the special tax. Moreover the record of the trial shows affirmatively that the defendant knew the time and circumstances, and that he suffered no prejudice for lack of a more definite statement of the date. The demurrer was properly overruled. Revised Statutes, § 1025, (Comp. St. § 1691); Ledbetter v. United States, 170 U. S. 606, 612, 18 S. Ct. 774, 42 L. Ed. 1162.
After the defendant had testified, denying altogether that he had kept or sold intoxicating liquors, the trial judge asked the witness several questions. The questions and answers are thus set out in the record:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Paiva
...§ 2557 (West 1971). A district court judge also has the power to question witnesses. Fed.R.Evid. 614. See also Terrell v. United States, 6 F.2d 498, 499 (4th Cir.1925). In commenting on the testimony or questioning witnesses, however, the judge may not assume the role of a witness. Quercia,......
-
In re Elam
...948 (2, 3); Sandrowski v. Sandrowski, 230 Mo.App. 1056, 93 S.W.2d 81. [2]Gray v. Crockett, 35 Kan. 66, 71, 10 P. 452, 455; Terrell v. U.S. (C.C.A.), 6 F.2d 498, 499(2); v. Sandquist, 146 Minn. 322, 323, 178 N.W. 883; State v. De Maio, 69 N.J.L. 590, 592, 55 A. 644; People v. Dohring, 59 N.Y......
-
U.S. v. Concemi
...witness." Id. (citing Quercia, 289 U.S. at 470, 53 S.Ct. at 699; Tyler v. Swenson, 427 F.2d 412, 416 (8th Cir.1970); Terrell v. United States, 6 F.2d 498, 499 (4th Cir.1925)). "He may analyze and dissect the evidence, but he may not either distort it or add to it." Maguire, 918 F.2d at 268 ......
-
Bradley v. State ex rel. White
...See, e.g.,Brown v. Lynaugh, 843 F.2d 849, 851 (5 th Cir.1988); Tyler v. Swenson, 427 F.2d 412, 415 (8 th Cir.1970); Terrell v. United States, 6 F.2d 498, 499 (4 th Cir.1925); Haynes v. State of Missouri, 937 S.W.2d 199, 202 (Mo.1996); Wilson v. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 910 P.2d 1020, 1......
-
Child, spouse & Misc.
...long-standing practice that a judge may neither testify nor comment at a trial in a “testimony-like way.” See Terrell v. United States , 6 F.2d 498 (4th Cir. 1925) (trial judge improperly stated that he was sure defendant had violated law and was lying; conviction reversed). Whenever a judg......
-
Witnesses
...long-standing practice that a judge may neither testify nor comment at a trial in a “testimony-like way.” See Terrell v. United States , 6 F.2d 498 (4th Cir. 1925) (trial judge improperly stated that he was sure defendant had violated law and was lying; conviction reversed). Whenever a judg......
-
Witnesses
...long-standing practice that a judge may neither testify nor comment at a trial in a “testimony-like way.” See Terrell v. United States , 6 F.2d 498 (4th Cir. 1925) (trial judge improperly stated that he was sure defendant had violated law and was lying; conviction reversed). Whenever a judg......
-
Witnesses
...long-standing practice that a judge may neither testify nor comment at a trial in a “testimony-like way.” See Terrell v. United States , 6 F.2d 498 (4th Cir. 1925) (trial judge improperly stated that he was sure defendant had violated law and was lying; conviction reversed). Whenever a judg......