United States v. John James Wendt

Fifth Circuit

United States v. John James Wendt

463 F.2d 202, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8654

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 1972

Docket72-1568

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 463 F.2d 202 (United States v. John James Wendt) 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

United States v. John James Wendt, 463 F.2d 202, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8654 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Wendt appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict of guilty of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of -18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. We find his contentions that there is insufficient evidence to convict and that the court erroneously failed to give a cautionary instruction contemporaneously with the admission of evidence of a prior conviction to be without merit and affirm.

No motion for a judgment of acquittal was made by Wendt. The question of the sufficiency of the evidence was thus not preserved for appellate review absent a manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. McGlamory, 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 130; United States v. Penner, 5 Cir. 1970, 425 F.2d 729. We find none here. On the contrary, the evidence of Wendt's guilt is overwhelming.

Wendt concedes, as he must, that it is proper to impeach the credibility of a defendant by showing prior convictions. United States v. Bland, 5 Cir. 1970, 432 F.2d 96, cert, denied 401 U.S. 912, 91 S.Ct. 877, 27 L.Ed.2d 810; United States v. Justice, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 30. He also concedes that no request for a cautionary instruction was made at any time, although such an instruction was given during the court’s charge to the jury. Wendt nevertheless contends that the court’s failure to instruct the jury at the time the testimony was given is plain error. Under the circumstances here shown we dismiss this contention as frivolous.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Wendt appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict of guilty of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of -18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. We find his contentions that there is insufficient evidence to convict and that the court erroneously failed to give a cautionary instruction contemporaneously with the admission of evidence of a prior conviction to be without merit and affirm.

No motion for a judgment of acquittal was made by Wendt. The question of the sufficiency of the evidence was thus not preserved for appellate review absent a manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. McGlamory, 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F.2d 130; United States v. Penner, 5 Cir. 1970, 425 F.2d 729. We find none here. On the contrary, the evidence of Wendt's guilt is overwhelming.

Wendt concedes, as he must, that it is proper to impeach the credibility of a defendant by showing prior convictions. United States v. Bland, 5 Cir. 1970, 432 F.2d 96, cert, denied 401 U.S. 912, 91 S.Ct. 877, 27 L.Ed.2d 810; United States v. Justice, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 30. He also concedes that no request for a cautionary instruction was made at any time, although such an instruction was given during the court’s charge to the jury. Wendt nevertheless contends that the court’s failure to instruct the jury at the time the testimony was given is plain error. Under the circumstances here shown we dismiss this contention as frivolous.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 F.2d 202, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-james-wendt-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack