United States v. Frank Newsome

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Frank Newsome

444 F.2d 109, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9509

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 17, 1971

Docket20977_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 444 F.2d 109 (United States v. Frank Newsome) 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

United States v. Frank Newsome, 444 F.2d 109, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9509 (6th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant was charged in the District Court with escape from federal custody and interstate transporta *110 tion of a stolen vehicle. This appeal followed judgment of conviction entered on the jury verdict finding him guilty of both charges.

Appellant contends that a confession was erroneously received in evidence as a part of the government’s case because the complete cautionary warning required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), was not given to him prior to his making of the confession. While the District Court found that a sufficient warning under Miranda had been given, we find it unnecessary to reach that point for reasons which hereinafter appear.

As was clearly enunciated in the opening statement of defense counsel, and as was further demonstrated by his closing argument to the jury, the sole defense presented at trial concerned the defendant’s alleged mental incompetence. While it is true that objection was made to the receipt of the confession in evidence during the government’s case, following the overruling of his motion for a judgment of acquittal made when the government rested, the defendant testified in his own behalf and in that testimony and in other evidence offered by him admitted the circumstances of both the escape from federal custody and the interstate transportation of the stolen motor vehicle. He did not renew the motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of all of the evidence.

In these circumstances, it must be concluded that the defendant waived his objections to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the confession had been erroneously received in evidence. United States v. Gosser, 339 F.2d 102 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 819, 86 S.Ct. 44, 15 L.Ed.2d 66; rehearing denied, 382 U.S. 922, 86 S.Ct. 285, 15 L.Ed.2d 237 (1965).

It is concluded that no error prejudicial to the rights of the accused occurred at trial, and the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant was charged in the District Court with escape from federal custody and interstate transporta *110 tion of a stolen vehicle. This appeal followed judgment of conviction entered on the jury verdict finding him guilty of both charges.

Appellant contends that a confession was erroneously received in evidence as a part of the government’s case because the complete cautionary warning required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), was not given to him prior to his making of the confession. While the District Court found that a sufficient warning under Miranda had been given, we find it unnecessary to reach that point for reasons which hereinafter appear.

As was clearly enunciated in the opening statement of defense counsel, and as was further demonstrated by his closing argument to the jury, the sole defense presented at trial concerned the defendant’s alleged mental incompetence. While it is true that objection was made to the receipt of the confession in evidence during the government’s case, following the overruling of his motion for a judgment of acquittal made when the government rested, the defendant testified in his own behalf and in that testimony and in other evidence offered by him admitted the circumstances of both the escape from federal custody and the interstate transportation of the stolen motor vehicle. He did not renew the motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of all of the evidence.

In these circumstances, it must be concluded that the defendant waived his objections to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the confession had been erroneously received in evidence. United States v. Gosser, 339 F.2d 102 (6th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 819, 86 S.Ct. 44, 15 L.Ed.2d 66; rehearing denied, 382 U.S. 922, 86 S.Ct. 285, 15 L.Ed.2d 237 (1965).

It is concluded that no error prejudicial to the rights of the accused occurred at trial, and the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 F.2d 109, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-frank-newsome-ca6-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack