Lester J. Thompson v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Lester J. Thompson v. United States

245 F.2d 232, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3223

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 1957

Docket16395_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 245 F.2d 232 (Lester J. Thompson 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

Lester J. Thompson v. United States, 245 F.2d 232, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3223 (5th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Convicted upon a charge of receiving and concealing a stolen motor vehicle, which was moving in interstate commerce, defendant has appealed. The case was tried without a single exception being taken to the introduction of the evidence or the charge of the court. There are three specifications of error.

The first is the general one which has lately become fashionable, especially where no objection was made or exception taken, that it was the duty of the judge to charge fully on the law of the case, that he did not do so, and that his failure so to do is manifest error requiring reversal, though neither objection nor exception was made below. While the principle invoked is sound enough in cases to which it applies, this is clearly not one of them.

The second is that evidence of appellant’s prior criminal record was admitted, and though not objected to, its admission is necessarily error. The only reference in the brief to this matter is at page 93 of the record, where nothing of the kind appears. On page 83, however it appears that, while on cross-examination defendant was asked if, and admitted that, he had been convicted in the City Court of Macon, Georgia, of the crime of soliciting for prostitution, no objection was made to the inquiry. Besides it was a crime involving moral turpitude, and its admission was not reversible error.

The third is that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the conviction. As no motion was made for acquittal, this presents nothing for review *233 unless it is made to appear that the evidence is such as to show a manifest miscarriage of justice. The evidence here is quite to the contrary, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Convicted upon a charge of receiving and concealing a stolen motor vehicle, which was moving in interstate commerce, defendant has appealed. The case was tried without a single exception being taken to the introduction of the evidence or the charge of the court. There are three specifications of error.

The first is the general one which has lately become fashionable, especially where no objection was made or exception taken, that it was the duty of the judge to charge fully on the law of the case, that he did not do so, and that his failure so to do is manifest error requiring reversal, though neither objection nor exception was made below. While the principle invoked is sound enough in cases to which it applies, this is clearly not one of them.

The second is that evidence of appellant’s prior criminal record was admitted, and though not objected to, its admission is necessarily error. The only reference in the brief to this matter is at page 93 of the record, where nothing of the kind appears. On page 83, however it appears that, while on cross-examination defendant was asked if, and admitted that, he had been convicted in the City Court of Macon, Georgia, of the crime of soliciting for prostitution, no objection was made to the inquiry. Besides it was a crime involving moral turpitude, and its admission was not reversible error.

The third is that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the conviction. As no motion was made for acquittal, this presents nothing for review *233 unless it is made to appear that the evidence is such as to show a manifest miscarriage of justice. The evidence here is quite to the contrary, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 F.2d 232, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lester-j-thompson-v-united-states-ca5-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack