Ronald J. Crane v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Ronald J. Crane v. United States

309 F.2d 464, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3799

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 1962

Docket19466

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 F.2d 464 (Ronald J. Crane 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

Ronald J. Crane v. United States, 309 F.2d 464, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3799 (5th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There was ample evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty; and there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial. The defendant’s counsel made no objection to any part of the court’s charge to the jury, but responded, “we are satisfied,” when the court inquired, “are there any exceptions to the court’s oral charge ?” The two excerpts from the charge urged on appeal as plain error under Rule 52(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., so clearly fail to amount to plain error affecting substantial rights of the defendant as not to warrant detailed discussion. Similarly, the failure *465 to give a cautionary instruction on the character of the female prosecuting witness, in the absence of any request or suggestion, was obviously not “plain error” with Rule 52(b). The judgment of conviction is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

There was ample evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty; and there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial. The defendant’s counsel made no objection to any part of the court’s charge to the jury, but responded, “we are satisfied,” when the court inquired, “are there any exceptions to the court’s oral charge ?” The two excerpts from the charge urged on appeal as plain error under Rule 52(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., so clearly fail to amount to plain error affecting substantial rights of the defendant as not to warrant detailed discussion. Similarly, the failure *465 to give a cautionary instruction on the character of the female prosecuting witness, in the absence of any request or suggestion, was obviously not “plain error” with Rule 52(b). The judgment of conviction is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 F.2d 464, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-j-crane-v-united-states-ca5-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack