TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Durden v. United States

Durden v. United States, 181 F.2d 496 (5th Cir. 1950)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 21, 1950
Docket
No. 12865_1
Judges
Hutcheson, Borah, Russell
Citations
181 F.2d 4961950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2629

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

• Charged in each of five counts of an indictment with making false completion certificates in connection with Federal Housing Administration insurance, defendant moved for a separate trial on each count.

The motion denied and the cause coming on for trial, there was a verdict finding defendant guilty as charged on Count Four, and not guilty on the other counts.

Appealing from the judgment on the verdict, defendant is here presenting substantially two grounds of error. One is the denial of the motion for separate trials on each of the five counts of the indictment. The other is the admission into evidence of a letter dealing with the matter charged in Count One, which, though defendant was acquitted on that count, it is claimed was of such damaging effect as to make its reception into evidence reversible error, though it was offered and received without objection of any kind.

We cannot agree with appellant that there is reversible error in either of the matters urged. The joinder in one indictment of several counts, all relating to the same general class of matters, was a matter within sound judicial discretion.

*497 That it was not abused is made plain by the fact that, though tried on five counts, defendant was convicted on only one of them.

The other claimed error, that the admission of the letter was so prejudicial as to require reversal, is equally without merit. Both because its introduction was not objected to and because the defendant has been acquitted on the count with which the letter dealt, it is quite plain that defendant took no prejudice from its admission.

No reversible error being made to appear, the judgment is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1953: 11954: 11956: 219532026peak 1956 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Edwards v. United States206 F.2d 855 (10th Cir. 1953)
  2. T. C. Risinger v. United States236 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1956)
  3. Risenger v. United States236 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1956)
  4. Simato v. District of Columbia108 A.2d 376 (D.C. 1954)

Most recent

  1. T. C. Risinger v. United States236 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1956)
  2. Risenger v. United States236 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1956)
  3. Simato v. District of Columbia108 A.2d 376 (D.C. 1954)
  4. Edwards v. United States206 F.2d 855 (10th Cir. 1953)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list