Robilio v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Robilio v. United States

259 F. 101, 170 C.C.A. 169, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1605

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 1919

DocketNos. 3224, 3225

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 259 F. 101 (Robilio v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robilio v. United States, 259 F. 101, 170 C.C.A. 169, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1605 (6th Cir. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Writs of error upon a conviction under Act March 3, 1917, c. 162, § 5, 39 Stat. 1069 (Comp. St. § 8739a) — the Reed Amendment — for transporting intoxicating liquor from Kentucky into Tennessee.

[1] Aside from any “confession,” there was sufficient evidence from which the jury might find that the offense had been committed, as well as that the liquor was not for one of the excepted purposes. Verdicts may rest upon rightful inference, as well as upon direct testimony. Laughter v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 259 Fed. 94, - C. C. A. -, opinion filed January 17, 1919.

[2] It does not follow from anything held in McKnight v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 115 Fed. 972, 982, 54 C. C. A. 358, that it is necessarily error to instruct the jury in the language of the statute (U. S. Comp. St. 1916, § 1465) that defendant’s failure to testify creates no presumption against him. Hanish v. United States (C. C. A. 7) 227 Fed. 584, 586, 142 C. C. A. 216; Stout v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 227 Fed. 799, 803, 142 C. C. A. 323.

[3] The additional remarks of the court to the jury, to the effect that the situation created by the government’s proofs remained “unexplained,” as such remarks would naturally be applied to the facts of this case, and as they were interpreted by the response of the court when his attention was called thereto, did not constitute that “comment” condemned in Wilson v. United States, 149 U. S. 60, 13 Sup. Ct. 765, 37 L. Ed. 650. See Stout v. United States, supra, 227 Fed. at page 804, 142 C. C. A. 323, and Shea v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 251 Fed. 440, 445, 163 C. C. A. 458.

The proof that the officers were waiting at the point where the arrest was made, because they had been told that liquor was to be brought in by some one, does not impress us as an attempt to prove the guilt of these defendants >by hearsay testimony, within the principle of Biandi v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 259 Fed. 93, - C. C. A. -, opinion filed February 5, 1919.

The judgment in each case is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Writs of error upon a conviction under Act March 3, 1917, c. 162, § 5, 39 Stat. 1069 (Comp. St. § 8739a) — the Reed Amendment — for transporting intoxicating liquor from Kentucky into Tennessee.

[1] Aside from any “confession,” there was sufficient evidence from which the jury might find that the offense had been committed, as well as that the liquor was not for one of the excepted purposes. Verdicts may rest upon rightful inference, as well as upon direct testimony. Laughter v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 259 Fed. 94, - C. C. A. -, opinion filed January 17, 1919.

[2] It does not follow from anything held in McKnight v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 115 Fed. 972, 982, 54 C. C. A. 358, that it is necessarily error to instruct the jury in the language of the statute (U. S. Comp. St. 1916, § 1465) that defendant’s failure to testify creates no presumption against him. Hanish v. United States (C. C. A. 7) 227 Fed. 584, 586, 142 C. C. A. 216; Stout v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 227 Fed. 799, 803, 142 C. C. A. 323.

[3] The additional remarks of the court to the jury, to the effect that the situation created by the government’s proofs remained “unexplained,” as such remarks would naturally be applied to the facts of this case, and as they were interpreted by the response of the court when his attention was called thereto, did not constitute that “comment” condemned in Wilson v. United States, 149 U. S. 60, 13 Sup. Ct. 765, 37 L. Ed. 650. See Stout v. United States, supra, 227 Fed. at page 804, 142 C. C. A. 323, and Shea v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 251 Fed. 440, 445, 163 C. C. A. 458.

The proof that the officers were waiting at the point where the arrest was made, because they had been told that liquor was to be brought in by some one, does not impress us as an attempt to prove the guilt of these defendants >by hearsay testimony, within the principle of Biandi v. United States (C. C. A. 6) 259 Fed. 93, - C. C. A. -, opinion filed February 5, 1919.

The judgment in each case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 F. 101, 170 C.C.A. 169, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robilio-v-united-states-ca6-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack