Vines v. United States

Fourth Circuit

Vines v. United States

72 F.2d 999, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4754

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 6, 1934

DocketNo. 3701

StatusPublished

This text of 72 F.2d 999 (Vines v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vines v. United States, 72 F.2d 999, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4754 (4th Cir. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, herein referred to as the defendant, was convicted in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia, in April, .1934. The indictment against the defendant contained two counts; the first charging possession of a stolen automobile in violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act (18 USCA § 408), and the second charging the transportation of the same automobile. At the trial, after evidence w-as hoard, the jury brought in a verdiet of guilty and the judge below fined [1000]*1000the defendant $1,000 and sentenced him to five years imprisonment, from which judgment this appeal was brought.

An examination of the record shows that there was ample evidence to justify the verdict of the jury.

The charge of the trial judge, read as a whole, was fair to the defendant. That part of the charge, to which attention is called in the brief on behalf of the defendant as being erroneous, was not objected to at the time and cannot now be considered here. Certainly the rights of the defendant were not prejudiced.

There was no harmful error in the trial, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, herein referred to as the defendant, was convicted in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia, in April, .1934. The indictment against the defendant contained two counts; the first charging possession of a stolen automobile in violation of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act (18 USCA § 408), and the second charging the transportation of the same automobile. At the trial, after evidence w-as hoard, the jury brought in a verdiet of guilty and the judge below fined [1000]*1000the defendant $1,000 and sentenced him to five years imprisonment, from which judgment this appeal was brought.

An examination of the record shows that there was ample evidence to justify the verdict of the jury.

The charge of the trial judge, read as a whole, was fair to the defendant. That part of the charge, to which attention is called in the brief on behalf of the defendant as being erroneous, was not objected to at the time and cannot now be considered here. Certainly the rights of the defendant were not prejudiced.

There was no harmful error in the trial, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 F.2d 999, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vines-v-united-states-ca4-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack