Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Beaton v. United States

Beaton v. United States, 5 F.2d 966 (9th Cir. 1925)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1925-06-01
Topic
general

GILBERT, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff in error was convicted under- a count of an indictment which charged him with unlawfully purchasing 40 grains of a preparation of opium. He brings the case before this court, relying upon the denial of his motion for a new trial, a ruling which is not reviewable here, and the refusal of the court below to direct a verdict of acquittal. The request for an instructed verdict .was made at the close of the government’s case, and was waived by the failure of the plaintiff in error to renew it after having testified in his own behalf. The assignments of error, therefore, bring nothing to the consideration of this court.

Citator

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

Cited by
2 opinions
BEATON v. UNITED STATES,5 F.2d 966(9th Cir. 1925)
BEATON v. UNITED STATES.
No. 4466.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 1, 1925.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington; William H. Sawtelle, Judge.

Doward A. Beaton was convicted of unlawfully purchasing opium, and he brings error. Affirmed.
T.D. Page, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff in error.

Thos. P. Revelle, U.S. Atty., and Donald G. Graham, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
GILBERT, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff in error was convicted under a count of an indictment which charged him with unlawfully purchasing 40 grains of a preparation of opium. He brings the case before this court, relying upon the denial of his motion for a new trial, a ruling which is not reviewable here, and the refusal of the court below to direct a verdict of acquittal.

The request for an instructed verdict was made at the close of the government's case, and was waived by the failure of the plaintiff in error to renew it after having testified in his own behalf. The assignments of error, therefore, bring nothing to the consideration of this court. We may add, however, that we have looked into the record, and find that there was substantial evidence upon which the jury's verdict was based.

The judgment is affirmed.Page 1011