Youngblood v. United States
| Citation | 266 F. 795 |
| Decision Date | 07 July 1920 |
| Docket Number | 5532. |
| Parties | YOUNGBLOOD v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
L. A Simpson, of Dickinson, N.D. (E. T. Burke, of Bismarck, N.D on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Melvin A. Hildreth, U.S. Atty., of Fargo, N.D. (Samuel L. Nuchols of Mandan, N.D., and Philip Elliott, Asst. U.S. Attys., of Fargo, N.D., on the brief), for the United States.
Before SANBORN and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and TRIEBER, District judge.
The plaintiff in error, hereafter referred to as the defendant seeks by this writ of error to reverse a judgment of conviction on an indictment charging him in two counts with the crime of perjury. Although found guilty on both counts and sentenced to imprisonment on each, the confinement is concurrent.
Without setting out all the formal allegations in the indictment, the sufficiency of which is not questioned, it charges the defendant, in the first count, with having sworn falsely while a witness in his own behalf in a cause pending in the District Court of the United States for the District of North Dakota, in which he and another defendant were charged with the crime of larceny from an interstate railroad car. The second count charges him with having sworn falsely, while testifying in the same case, in which he was charged in the second count of the indictment, with having in his possession certain articles which had been stolen from a railroad car in process of transportation in interstate commerce, knowing that they had been feloniously stolen from such a car.
Although it is alleged in the assignment of errors that the court erred in denying defendant's motion to direct a verdict of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, and again at the close of all the testimony in the case, the record fails to show that such motions were made at any time in behalf of the defendant; but, as the defendant's personal liberty is involved, we have considered the assignment that the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal at the close of all the testimony.
As to the denial of the motion for a directed verdict at the close of the government's testimony, even if it had been made, it could not be considered by this court, as it was waived when the defendant introduced testimony in his defense. A careful reading of the testimony satisfies beyond question that, unless the court erred as a matter of law in submitting the cause to the jury, it committed no error. The errors of law, although not complained of in the assignment of errors, nor discussed in the brief of counsel for defendant, were presented in the oral argument, and will be considered by the court.
It is claimed that the court erred in sustaining objections to testimony offered in behalf of defendant that the articles, alleged to have been stolen and found in the defendant's residence by the sheriff of Golden Valley county, N.D., were seized by the sheriff after a search of his home without a lawful search warrant. No request had been made to the court before the trial of the first cause or this cause for a return of the goods thus seized by the sheriff, or an order restraining the prosecuting officer of the United States from introducing evidence obtained from the alleged unlawful search.
The leading case on this subject, upon which both parties rely, is Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 Sup.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, L.R.A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177. But this case does not sustain defendant's contention. It was there held that while, upon an application by the defendant charged with the commission of a crime, it is the duty of the court to order the return of all papers, documents, and articles seized by officials of the United States without a legal search warrant, the court will not, at the trial of the charge permit a collateral issue to be raised as to the source of competent testimony, citing with approval Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585, 24 Sup.Ct. 372, 48 L.Ed. 575, 1 Greenleaf, Sec. 254a, and the case note to State v. Turner, 136 Am.St.Rep. 129, 135. The court in referring to that note said:
'After citing numerous cases the editor says: 'The underlying principle of all these decisions obviously is, that the court, when engaged in the trial of a criminal action, will not take notice of the manner in which a witness has possessed himself of papers or other chattels, subjects of evidence, which are material and properly offered in evidence. People v. Adams, 176 N.Y. 351, 98 Am.St.Rep. 675, 68 N.E. 636, 63 L.R.A. 406. Such an investigation is not involved necessarily in the litigation in chief, and to pursue it would be to halt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marron v. United States
...directed verdict. By offering evidence thereafter, these defendants waived this motion. Simkins on Federal Practice, 109; Youngblood v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 266 F. 795, 796; Pennsylvania Co. v. Clark (C. C. A.) 266 F. 182; Woodstock Corporation v. Young (C. C. A.) 268 F. The motion was renewed ......
-
United States v. Williams
...F. 498; Chitwood v. United States, 8 Cir., 178 F. 442; Allen v. United States, 4 Cir., 194 F. 664, 39 L.R.A.,N.S., 385; Youngblood v. United States, 8 Cir., 266 F. 795; Kuskulis v. United States, 10 Cir., 37 F.2d 241. 4 To be present at a crime is not evidence of guilt as an aider or abetto......
-
State v. Maes
...is offered in the federal courts, Weeks v. United States, supra; Burdeau v. McDowell, supra; Rice v. United States, supra; Youngblood v. United States, supra; Herine v. United States (9 C. C. A.) 276 F. Kanellos v. United States, supra (overruling Dukes v. United States, supra); United Stat......
-
95-749 La.App. 3 Cir. 4/17/96, State v. Bolden
...for perjury is precluded by the jury's verdict of acquittal. Ehrlich v. United States, 145 F.2d 693 (5th Cir.1944); Youngblood v. United States, 266 F. 795 (8th Cir.1920); Chitwood v. United States, 178 F. 442 (8th Cir.1910). Thus, it has been held that following an acquittal of an adultery......