TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Black v. United States

Black v. United States, 7 F.2d 469 (6th Cir. 1925)
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
June 30, 1925
Docket
No. 4312
Citations
7 F.2d 4691925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3574

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

In reference to the first and second assignments of error and the claim made in the brief for plaintiff in error, but not assigned as error in the original petition, that defendant was not in court when sentence was imposed, it is sufficient to say that this court cannot consider claimed errors not exhibited by the record.

A witness offered by the government had been theretofore convicted of one or more offenses and sentenced by the District Court to a term or terms in jail. He testified on cross-examination : That he was still in jail serving such sentence, and that “nobody came down there and told me I could have a little time off if I would testify about Black. * * * They didn’t tell me they would make it a little easier on me. I wasn’t looking for any time off.” It was not prejudicial error for the district attorney to state, after the witness had so testified: “I will say to you I am going to recommend that his time he cut down.”

An assignment of error that no evidence was offered tending to prove that the offense charged was a second offense must be overrated, where it appears that during the trial of the cause counsel for the accused, in his presence, admitted in open court that the accused had theretofore been convicted of a like offense.

Where, at the conchision of the government’s evidence, the defendant moves the court for a directed verdict, and the motion is overruled and exception noted, the error, if any, is waived by the introduction of further evidence on behalf of the defendant.

The verdict and judgment in this case are fully sustained by substantial evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1926: 119262026peak 1926 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lau v. United States13 F.2d 975 (8th Cir. 1926)

Most recent

  1. Lau v. United States13 F.2d 975 (8th Cir. 1926)

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