Lynch v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Lynch v. United States

80 F.2d 390, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3294

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 1935

DocketNo. 7886

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 F.2d 390 (Lynch 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

Lynch v. United States, 80 F.2d 390, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3294 (9th Cir. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Elva E. . Lynch was indicted for passing and uttering a counterfeit coin (Criminal Code § 163, 18 U.S.C.A. § 277). Having been convicted and sentenced, she prosecutes this appeal. The only grounds of appeal urged in this court are that the trial court erred (1) in admitting testimony of two government witnesses, Fred Rottle and William Schlax; and (2) in admitting in evidence Government Exhibits 4 and 8. The first ground is untenable, because, in the trial court, the testimony of Rottle and Schlax was not objected to. Bruno v. United States (C.C.A.9) 67 F.(2d) 416, 419. The other ground is untenable, because, in the trial court, Exhibits 4 and 8 were not objected to on any of the grounds urged here. Crono v. United States (C.C.A.9) 59 F.(2d) 339, 340. It does not, in fact, appear from the record that any ground of objection was stated in the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Elva E. . Lynch was indicted for passing and uttering a counterfeit coin (Criminal Code § 163, 18 U.S.C.A. § 277). Having been convicted and sentenced, she prosecutes this appeal. The only grounds of appeal urged in this court are that the trial court erred (1) in admitting testimony of two government witnesses, Fred Rottle and William Schlax; and (2) in admitting in evidence Government Exhibits 4 and 8. The first ground is untenable, because, in the trial court, the testimony of Rottle and Schlax was not objected to. Bruno v. United States (C.C.A.9) 67 F.(2d) 416, 419. The other ground is untenable, because, in the trial court, Exhibits 4 and 8 were not objected to on any of the grounds urged here. Crono v. United States (C.C.A.9) 59 F.(2d) 339, 340. It does not, in fact, appear from the record that any ground of objection was stated in the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 F.2d 390, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-united-states-ca9-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack