United States v. Carey Wallace
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carey WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from a conviction for possessing and transporting non-tax-paid liquor. Pursuant to new Rule 18 of the Rules of this court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969).
The only issue is sufficiency of evidence to take the case to the jury. Motion for judgment of acquittal was made at the conclusion of the government’s case and denied. The defense offered evidence, and the motion was not renewed at the conclusion of all the evidence. This waived objection to the denial of the motion, and sufficiency of the evidence is before us only under the plain error rule. United States v. Calderon, 348 U.S. 160 , 75 S.Ct. 186 , 99 L.Ed. 202 (1954); Clark v. United States, 293 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1961).
There was no plain error in this case. The evidence of arresting officers at the scene of appellant’s arrest, plus appellant’s own post-arrest statements, was adequate to take the case to the jury even if the motion had been renewed.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.