Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Molina v. United States

162 F.2d 198

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1947-06-04
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Indicted for having unlawfully acquired marihuana without having paid the transfer tax imposed thereon by law, defendant was tried to, and convicted by, a jury. Without having moved for a directed verdict, excepted to the charge, or in. any other way challenged the sufficiency of the evidence below, he is here seeking a reversal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. It is settled law in the federal courts that an appellate court will not consider the sufficiency of the evidence where the question is not raised in the trial court, unless it is plain that the record is wholly devoid of evidence pointing to guilt and that therefore justice has miscarried, Marco v. United States, 9 Cir., 26 F.2d 315.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Molina v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
12 opinions
MOLINA v. UNITED STATES,162 F.2d 198(5th Cir. 1947)
MOLINA v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11913.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 4, 1947.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas; Ben H. Rice, Jr., Judge.

Jose Hernandez Molina was convicted of unlawfully having acquired marihuana without having paid the transfer tax imposed thereon by law, and he appeals.

Affirmed.
Floyd D. James, of San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.

J.M. Burnett, U.S. Atty., and Joel W. Westbrook, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Henry W. Moursund, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., all of San Antonio, Tex., for the United States.
Before HUTCHESON, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Indicted for having unlawfully acquired marihuana without having paid the transfer tax imposed thereon by law, defendant was tried to, and convicted by, a jury. Without having moved for a directed verdict, excepted to the charge, or in any other way challenged the sufficiency of the evidence below, he is here seeking a reversal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

It is settled law in the federal courts that an appellate court will not consider the sufficiency of the evidence where the question is not raised in the trial court, unless it is plain that the record is wholly devoid of evidence pointing to guilt and that therefore justice has miscarried, Marco v. United States, 9 Cir.,26 F.2d 315. An examination of this record does not show a miscarriage of justice. On the contrary it shows that there was ample evidence to take the case to the jury, that the trial was without error, and that the judgment should be affirmed.
Affirmed.Page 199
Page 301