TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

John Daniel Byars v. United States

John Daniel BYARS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Byars v. United States, 238 F.2d 82 (6th Cir. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 17, 1956
Docket
No. 12822_1
Judges
Simons, Allen, Miller
Citations
238 F.2d 821956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3991

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Following trial by jury, appellant was found guilty under a three-count indictment charging unlawful possession of a still, unlawfully carrying on the business of a distiller, and unlawful possession of distilled spirits, and received a sentence of $300 fine and imprisonment of 179 days. Sections 2810(a), 2833(a) and 2803(a), Title 26, U.S.Code.

Part of the Government’s evidence was the testimony of two witnesses who stated that Matthews, a co-defendant, when arrested, made the statement, not in the presence of the appellant, that he was paid $6 a day by the appellant for working at the still. This testimony, although hearsay, was not objected to at any time during the trial, and no motion for judgment of acquittal was made at the close of the Government’s case or at the end of all the evidence in the case. Appellant concedes that the evidence, although weak, if competent and believed, was sufficient to take the case to the jury. He contends on this appeal that the foregoing hearsay testimony should be disregarded and the judgment reversed for lack of substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict. Moss v. United States, 6 Cir., 132 F.2d 875, 878 ; Loehr v. United States, 10 Cir., 54 F.2d 859 .

The Court is of the opinion that the hearsay evidence, in the absence of objections to its admission, was properly considered by the jury, Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 450 , 32 S.Ct. 250 , 56 L.Ed. 500 ; Clark v. McNeill, 6 Cir., 25 F.2d 247 ; that the weight to be given to such testimony in view of the attempt made to discredit it was also a question for the jury, Ross v. United States, 6 Cir., 197 F.2d 660, 665 , certiorari denied 344 U.S. 832 , 73 S.Ct. 40 , 97 L.Ed. 648 ; and that it should not be disregarded by the Court on this review, Metcalf v. United States, 6 Cir., 195 F.2d 213, 216-217 .

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1957: 11959: 11965: 11966: 21974: 119572026peak 1966 · 2

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442 (1912) 869
Metcalf v. United States, 195 F.2d 213 (6th Cir. 1952) 35
Ross v. United States, 197 F.2d 660 (6th Cir. 1952) 22
Moss v. United States, 132 F.2d 875 (6th Cir. 1943) 21
Clark v. McNeill, 25 F.2d 247 (6th Cir. 1928) 6
Loehr v. United States, 54 F.2d 859 (10th Cir. 1931) 1

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