Cangelosi v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Cangelosi v. United States

19 F.2d 923, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2385

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 10, 1927

DocketNo. 4850

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 19 F.2d 923 (Cangelosi v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cangelosi v. United States, 19 F.2d 923, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2385 (6th Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Cangelosi’s meritorious defense was a complete denial of the alleged sale and transportation of intoxicating liquor; and the denial was supported by his own testimony and that of other witnesses that at the critical time he was not at the place charged, but was elsewhere. The court charged the jury that every element of the offense, including respondent’s presence at the time and place involved, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but also charged that the defense of an alibi must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence. While a jury may be properly cautioned as to inconsistencies, deficiencies, or weaknesses which may appear in testimony on this subject, and to which they should give due attention, yet the two charges as given here are so inconsistent that they cannot both be right. Quite plainly no burden rests upon the defendant upon this subject, and such a charge as this is confusing, erroneous, and seemingly prejudicial. Glover v. U. S. (C. C. A. 8) 147 F. 426, 8 Ann. Cas. 1184.

At the conclusion of the charge there was a colloquy between court and counsel on this subject, and exception was duly saved. It is sufficient to say that we are not convinced that the prejudice was removed and the matter made clear by the supplemental remarks of the judge.

In view of the necessary new trial, we should add that the evidence did not support the conviction upon the nuisance count, and that we find no other error.

The judgment is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Cangelosi’s meritorious defense was a complete denial of the alleged sale and transportation of intoxicating liquor; and the denial was supported by his own testimony and that of other witnesses that at the critical time he was not at the place charged, but was elsewhere. The court charged the jury that every element of the offense, including respondent’s presence at the time and place involved, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but also charged that the defense of an alibi must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence. While a jury may be properly cautioned as to inconsistencies, deficiencies, or weaknesses which may appear in testimony on this subject, and to which they should give due attention, yet the two charges as given here are so inconsistent that they cannot both be right. Quite plainly no burden rests upon the defendant upon this subject, and such a charge as this is confusing, erroneous, and seemingly prejudicial. Glover v. U. S. (C. C. A. 8) 147 F. 426, 8 Ann. Cas. 1184.

At the conclusion of the charge there was a colloquy between court and counsel on this subject, and exception was duly saved. It is sufficient to say that we are not convinced that the prejudice was removed and the matter made clear by the supplemental remarks of the judge.

In view of the necessary new trial, we should add that the evidence did not support the conviction upon the nuisance count, and that we find no other error.

The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F.2d 923, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cangelosi-v-united-states-ca6-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack