United States v. Haynes
| Citation | 291 F.2d 166 |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 400,Docket 26023.,400 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Coner Elmer HAYNES, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Henry J. Steiner, New York City (Anthony F. Marra, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Grenville Garside, Asst. U. S. Atty., S. D. New York, New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., and George
I. Gordon, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH* and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.
Coner Elmer Haynes, a merchant seaman, appeals from his conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm. 18 U.S.C. § 113 (c). Jurisdiction lies in the federal courts because the assault occurred in the Persian Gulf "within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States * * * on a vessel belonging to a United States citizen * *". 18 U.S.C. § 7, and venue was properly laid in the Southern District because Haynes was "found" therein after his return from the voyage. 18 U.S.C. § 3238. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Haynes had attacked and stabbed Gerald Shaffer, a fellow seaman, with a pocket knife and appellant's sole contention is that the trial judge's comment upon the evidence was fundamentally unfair. We do not agree and therefore we affirm the conviction.
Haynes' trial counsel made no objection to the charge. Though in exceptional cases we can nevertheless notice the assertion of error, United States v. Woods, 2 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 334; United States v. Raub, 7 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 312, 315; cf. United States v. O'Connor, 2 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 466, we do not do so here since the alleged errors are neither "plain" nor "substantial." Rule 52(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.
Two of the challenged statements consisted of telling the jury that it could "pause" or "inquire" why Haynes threw the knife overboard or denied to the ship's captain, who was seeking to treat the injured man, that he had used a knife. The trial judge did little more than call the jury's attention to these incriminating items of evidence and to the extent that he obliquely intimated that he found the evidence significant he was well within the zone of permissible comment. United States v. Goldstein, 2 Cir., 1941, 120 F.2d 485; compare Quercia v. United States, 1933, 289 U.S. 466, 53 S.Ct. 698, 77 L.Ed. 1321; United States v. Murdock, 1933, 290 U.S. 389, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381. Another challenged portion of the charge, where the judge stated in reference to an earlier fight following Shaffer's rejection of Haynes' offer of friendship, that an "abusive rejection" would not justify an assault does not, when read in context, support the contention that it took the issue of fact away from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mims v. United States
...of Virgin Islands v. Smith, 3 Cir., 278 F.2d 169, 174 (1960). 36 Cook v. United States, 5 Cir., 320 F. 2d 258 (1963); United States v. Haynes, 2 Cir., 291 F.2d 166 (1961); United States v. Grosso, 3 Cir., 358 F.2d 154 (1966); Ramsey v. United States, 8 Cir., 332 F.2d 875 (1964); Lohmann v. ......
-
United States v. Wallack
...on appeal, Fed.R.Crim.P. 30, where the alleged errors were neither "plain" nor "substantial," Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Haynes, 291 F. 2d 166, 167 (2d Cir. 1961), and did not "seriously * * * affect the substantial rights of defendant." United States v. O'Connor, 237 F.2d 466, 4......
-
United States v. Bryant
... ... Similarly, the transcript of that tape also was admitted in evidence without objection ... 3 The power to notice plain error is one that we exercise only where the fundamental fairness of the trial is affected. See, e. g., United States v. Haynes, 291 F.2d 166, 167 (2 Cir. 1961). Only if serious injustice was inflicted upon a defendant, or if he was convicted in a manner inconsistent with fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings, will we exercise our power under the plain error ... ...
-
United States v. Freeman
...to Copeland's testimony was taken at the trial and accordingly this point is not available to Freeman on appeal. See United States v. Haynes, 291 F.2d 166 (2 Cir. 1961); United States v. Sansone, 231 F.2d 887 (2 Cir. 1956), certiorari denied, 351 U.S. 987, 76 S.Ct. 1055, 100 L.Ed. Emma Ward......