Canning v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Canning v. United States

119 F.2d 130, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3658

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 1941

DocketNo. 9531

StatusPublished

This text of 119 F.2d 130 (Canning 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

Canning v. United States, 119 F.2d 130, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3658 (9th Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Earl Canning was convicted and sentenced on count 6 (the conspiracy count) of the indictment described in Cornes v. United States, 9 Cir., 119 F.2d 127, decided this day, and has appealed.

Appellant assigns as error the denial of his motion for a directed verdict. The assignment is well taken. There is no evidence that appellant was a party to the con[131]*131spiracy charged in count 6. All that the evidence shows is that, as a part-time employee of the conspirators, appellant performed services which the conspirators made use of in effecting the object of the conspiracy — a conspiracy of which, so far as the evidence shows, appellant had no knowledge. The evidence did not, as against appellant, warrant submission of the case to the jury, nor does it support the jury’s verdict.

Judgment reversed.

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

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Earl Canning was convicted and sentenced on count 6 (the conspiracy count) of the indictment described in Cornes v. United States, 9 Cir., 119 F.2d 127, decided this day, and has appealed.

Appellant assigns as error the denial of his motion for a directed verdict. The assignment is well taken. There is no evidence that appellant was a party to the con[131]*131spiracy charged in count 6. All that the evidence shows is that, as a part-time employee of the conspirators, appellant performed services which the conspirators made use of in effecting the object of the conspiracy — a conspiracy of which, so far as the evidence shows, appellant had no knowledge. The evidence did not, as against appellant, warrant submission of the case to the jury, nor does it support the jury’s verdict.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F.2d 130, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canning-v-united-states-ca9-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack