Charles Edward Stegall v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Charles Edward Stegall v. United States

279 F.2d 872, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4382

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 1960

Docket13982

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 279 F.2d 872 (Charles Edward Stegall 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

Charles Edward Stegall v. United States, 279 F.2d 872, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4382 (6th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal, we must consider whether or not the issue of erroneous instruction by the trial court may be properly raised under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. We think the trial judge was in error in charging the jury that there was no dispute that the two persons who entered the bank which was robbed by them, did so with a flourish of weapons and placed the lives of a man and woman in jeopardy. Proof showed appellant to be one of the two persons who entered the bank.

This constituted invasion of the province of the jury. But we are of opinion that the issue of this erroneous charge may not be properly reviewed under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This court said in Duggins v. United States, 6 Cir., 240 F.2d 479, 483: “Rule 35 presupposes a conviction and affords a procedure for bringing an improper sentence under it into conformity with the law.” See also Corcoran v. United States, 7 Cir., 231 F.2d 449; Cook v. United States, 1 Cir., 171 F.2d 567.

Moreover, it is provided in Rule 30, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that error is not assignable to any portion of a charge or omission therefrom, unless objection thereto is made before the jury retires to consider its verdict, it being necessary that the objector state distinctly the subject matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal, we must consider whether or not the issue of erroneous instruction by the trial court may be properly raised under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. We think the trial judge was in error in charging the jury that there was no dispute that the two persons who entered the bank which was robbed by them, did so with a flourish of weapons and placed the lives of a man and woman in jeopardy. Proof showed appellant to be one of the two persons who entered the bank.

This constituted invasion of the province of the jury. But we are of opinion that the issue of this erroneous charge may not be properly reviewed under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This court said in Duggins v. United States, 6 Cir., 240 F.2d 479, 483: “Rule 35 presupposes a conviction and affords a procedure for bringing an improper sentence under it into conformity with the law.” See also Corcoran v. United States, 7 Cir., 231 F.2d 449; Cook v. United States, 1 Cir., 171 F.2d 567.

Moreover, it is provided in Rule 30, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that error is not assignable to any portion of a charge or omission therefrom, unless objection thereto is made before the jury retires to consider its verdict, it being necessary that the objector state distinctly the subject matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 F.2d 872, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-edward-stegall-v-united-states-ca6-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack