Hughey v. United States

212 F.2d 896, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3461
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 4, 1954
Docket14977_1
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 212 F.2d 896 (Hughey 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
Hughey v. United States, 212 F.2d 896, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3461 (8th Cir. 1954).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record on appeal shows that the defendant (appellant) was charged, by indictment based on 26 U.S.C.A. § 3253, with having carried on the business of a retail liquor dealer and having willfully failed to pay the special occupational tax imposed by law on retail liquor dealers; that she entered a plea of not guilty to the indictment; that the issue of her guilt or innocence was tried to a jury; that she produced no evidence; that she challenged the sufficiency of the Government's evidence by a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal; that the ease was submitted to the jury; that the jury returned a verdict of guilty; that thereafter she renewed her motion for a judgment of acquittal, and also moved, in the alternative, for a new trial; that her motions were overruled; and that she has appealed from the final judgment imposed upon her.

We have read the evidence and the instructions of the court and have considered the contentions of the defendant. Every question which she presents for review that has any color of merit was answered by Judge Lemley fully and accurately in United States v. Hughey, D.C., 116 F.Supp. 649. He has stated the facts with precision and in detail and has cited an abundance of authority to sustain the Government’s contention that the evidence was sufficient to make the issue of the guilt or innocence of the defendant one of fact for the jury and that the judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict is unassailable. Merely to repeat or paraphrase what Judge Lem-ley has written in denying the defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial would be unjustified.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

Related

Duncan v. State
454 S.W.2d 98 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1970)
Peters v. State
450 S.W.2d 276 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 F.2d 896, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughey-v-united-states-ca8-1954.