Jimmie Doyle Bear v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Jimmie Doyle Bear v. United States

384 F.2d 132, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4752

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedOctober 26, 1967

Docket9478_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 384 F.2d 132 (Jimmie Doyle Bear v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jimmie Doyle Bear v. United States, 384 F.2d 132, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4752 (10th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bear appeals from a conviction and sentence for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (d). The only assignment of error is that the court erred in not granting a motion for continuance because of the absence of Bear’s brother John, alleged to be a material and necessary witness for the defense.

At the hearing on the motion, numerous witnesses were called and it was established that until a short time before the trial, the brother had assisted counsel for the accused in preparing a defense, and then disappeared. The hearing developed little, if any, material evidence concerning the nature of the brother’s testimony if available as a witness.

A motion for continuance is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose action is not subject to review unless the discretion is abused. Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, 450, 60 S.Ct. 321, 84 L.Ed. 377; Franklin v. State of South Carolina, 218 U.S. 161, 168, 30 S.Ct. 640, 54 L.Ed. 981; Leino v. United States, 10 Cir., 338 F.2d 154; Brooks v. United States, 10 Cir., 330 F.2d 757, cert. denied 379 U.S. 852, 85 S.Ct. 100, 13 L.Ed.2d 56; Wood v. United States, 10 Cir., 317 F.2d 736; Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 273 F.2d 462, cert. denied 363 U.S. 846, 80 S.Ct. 1619, 4 L.Ed.2d 1729. We find no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Bear appeals from a conviction and sentence for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (d). The only assignment of error is that the court erred in not granting a motion for continuance because of the absence of Bear’s brother John, alleged to be a material and necessary witness for the defense.

At the hearing on the motion, numerous witnesses were called and it was established that until a short time before the trial, the brother had assisted counsel for the accused in preparing a defense, and then disappeared. The hearing developed little, if any, material evidence concerning the nature of the brother’s testimony if available as a witness.

A motion for continuance is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose action is not subject to review unless the discretion is abused. Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, 450, 60 S.Ct. 321, 84 L.Ed. 377; Franklin v. State of South Carolina, 218 U.S. 161, 168, 30 S.Ct. 640, 54 L.Ed. 981; Leino v. United States, 10 Cir., 338 F.2d 154; Brooks v. United States, 10 Cir., 330 F.2d 757, cert. denied 379 U.S. 852, 85 S.Ct. 100, 13 L.Ed.2d 56; Wood v. United States, 10 Cir., 317 F.2d 736; Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 273 F.2d 462, cert. denied 363 U.S. 846, 80 S.Ct. 1619, 4 L.Ed.2d 1729. We find no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 F.2d 132, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmie-doyle-bear-v-united-states-ca10-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack