Beaton v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Beaton v. United States

5 F.2d 966, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2800

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 1925

DocketNo. 4466

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 F.2d 966 (Beaton v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beaton v. United States, 5 F.2d 966, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2800 (9th Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

GILBERT, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error was convicted under- a count of an indictment which charged him with unlawfully purchasing 40 grains of a preparation of opium. He brings the case before this court, relying upon the denial of his motion for a new trial, a ruling which is not reviewable here, and the refusal of the court below to direct a verdict of acquittal.

The request for an instructed verdict .was made at the close of the government’s case, and was waived by the failure of the plaintiff in error to renew it after having testified in his own behalf. The assignments of error, therefore, bring nothing to the consideration of this court. We may add, however, that we have looked into the record, and find that there was. substantial evidence upon which'the jury’s verdict was based.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GILBERT, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff in error was convicted under- a count of an indictment which charged him with unlawfully purchasing 40 grains of a preparation of opium. He brings the case before this court, relying upon the denial of his motion for a new trial, a ruling which is not reviewable here, and the refusal of the court below to direct a verdict of acquittal.

The request for an instructed verdict .was made at the close of the government’s case, and was waived by the failure of the plaintiff in error to renew it after having testified in his own behalf. The assignments of error, therefore, bring nothing to the consideration of this court. We may add, however, that we have looked into the record, and find that there was. substantial evidence upon which'the jury’s verdict was based.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F.2d 966, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 2800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beaton-v-united-states-ca9-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack