James Lawrence Ray v. United States

Fifth Circuit

James Lawrence Ray v. United States

352 F.2d 521

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 12, 1965

Docket21314_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 352 F.2d 521 (James Lawrence Ray v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Lawrence Ray v. United States, 352 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant-defendant was convicted of transporting and causing to be transported a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of section 2312, Title 18 United States Code. On appeal he makes two contentions.

The first is that the district court erred in denying his motion for a continuance on account of the absence of the witness, Henry Hance. The United States Marshal’s return on the subpoena indicated that the witness could not be found, followed by the word “moved.” After hearing the defendant testify in support of his motion for a continuance, the court overruled the motion, stating that the witness’ testimony would be cumulative and that there was no showing that the witness could ever be produced. As said in Babb v. United States, 5 Cir. 1954, 210 F.2d 473, 475:

“A motion for continuance is directed to the discretion of the trial court, and the court did not abuse its discretion in this case. Isaacs v. United States, 159 U.S. 487, 16 S. Ct. 51, 40 L.Ed. 229.”

In the instant case also, the court did not abuse its discretion.

The second assignment of error is that the jury verdict was contrary to the facts and the evidence and that the court erred in denying the motion to set aside the verdict. An examination of the record convinces us that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant-defendant was convicted of transporting and causing to be transported a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of section 2312, Title 18 United States Code. On appeal he makes two contentions.

The first is that the district court erred in denying his motion for a continuance on account of the absence of the witness, Henry Hance. The United States Marshal’s return on the subpoena indicated that the witness could not be found, followed by the word “moved.” After hearing the defendant testify in support of his motion for a continuance, the court overruled the motion, stating that the witness’ testimony would be cumulative and that there was no showing that the witness could ever be produced. As said in Babb v. United States, 5 Cir. 1954, 210 F.2d 473, 475:

“A motion for continuance is directed to the discretion of the trial court, and the court did not abuse its discretion in this case. Isaacs v. United States, 159 U.S. 487, 16 S. Ct. 51, 40 L.Ed. 229.”

In the instant case also, the court did not abuse its discretion.

The second assignment of error is that the jury verdict was contrary to the facts and the evidence and that the court erred in denying the motion to set aside the verdict. An examination of the record convinces us that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 F.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-lawrence-ray-v-united-states-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack