Bonner v. United States

Eighth Circuit

Bonner v. United States

275 F. 614, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2256

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 10, 1921

DocketNo. 5579

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 275 F. 614 (Bonner v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonner v. United States, 275 F. 614, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2256 (8th Cir. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

James Bonner seeks a review of a sentence imposed upon him on conviction of conspiracy, with others, in the Western District of Arkansas, to commit an offense against the United States (Criminal Code, § 37 [Comp. St. § 10201]), to wit, the introduction of intoxicating liquor from outside the state of Oklahoma into the part of that state which was formerly Indian Territory (Act March 1, 1895, 28 Stat. 693). All his assignments of error are pointed directly or indirectly to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. But there .was no challenge of the evidence in that particular at the close of the trial by demurrer, motion, request for instruction, or otherwise. Consequently, according to the long-settled practice in the courts of the United States the question in not open here. Furthermore, four of the five assignments complain of the overruling of the motion of the accused for a new trial; also, it has often been held that error is not assignable on such a ruling. Notwithstanding the above, we have examined the record of the trial, and are of the opinion that there was substantial evidence of guilt. The sentence is affirmed.

This opinion was prepared by Judge HOOK in his lifetime, and has been concurred in by the judges who sat in the case, and has been filed pursuant to the order of the court.

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

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

James Bonner seeks a review of a sentence imposed upon him on conviction of conspiracy, with others, in the Western District of Arkansas, to commit an offense against the United States (Criminal Code, § 37 [Comp. St. § 10201]), to wit, the introduction of intoxicating liquor from outside the state of Oklahoma into the part of that state which was formerly Indian Territory (Act March 1, 1895, 28 Stat. 693). All his assignments of error are pointed directly or indirectly to the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt. But there .was no challenge of the evidence in that particular at the close of the trial by demurrer, motion, request for instruction, or otherwise. Consequently, according to the long-settled practice in the courts of the United States the question in not open here. Furthermore, four of the five assignments complain of the overruling of the motion of the accused for a new trial; also, it has often been held that error is not assignable on such a ruling. Notwithstanding the above, we have examined the record of the trial, and are of the opinion that there was substantial evidence of guilt. The sentence is affirmed.

This opinion was prepared by Judge HOOK in his lifetime, and has been concurred in by the judges who sat in the case, and has been filed pursuant to the order of the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 F. 614, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonner-v-united-states-ca8-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack