Charles Eugene Hayter v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Charles Eugene Hayter v. United States

362 F.2d 973, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6047

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 24, 1966

Docket20516

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 362 F.2d 973 (Charles Eugene Hayter 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

Charles Eugene Hayter v. United States, 362 F.2d 973, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6047 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of conviction of appellant on a bank robbery charge is affirmed. The government’s case was that Hayter drove the get-away ear as part of a robbery of a national bank. The appellant appeals and says the evidence was insufficient. A review of the record shows it sufficient for a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Appellant also complains of the rejection of his tendered instruction on circumstantial evidence, which in effect said that a defendant must be found guilty on circumstantial evidence only if the case removes all doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient. The jury was fairly instructed on circumstantial evidence. See Strangway v. United States, 9 Cir., 312 F.2d 283.

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

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of conviction of appellant on a bank robbery charge is affirmed. The government’s case was that Hayter drove the get-away ear as part of a robbery of a national bank. The appellant appeals and says the evidence was insufficient. A review of the record shows it sufficient for a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Appellant also complains of the rejection of his tendered instruction on circumstantial evidence, which in effect said that a defendant must be found guilty on circumstantial evidence only if the case removes all doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient. The jury was fairly instructed on circumstantial evidence. See Strangway v. United States, 9 Cir., 312 F.2d 283.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 F.2d 973, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-eugene-hayter-v-united-states-ca9-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack