Emile J. Daigle, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 248 F.2d 608 (D.C. Cir. 1958)

Federal Circuits, D.C. Circuit (January 06, 1958)

Docket number: 13785


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/emile-daigle-united-states-america-36664909
Id. vLex: VLEX-36664909

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Richard Dudley Helms, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 310 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1962)

U.S. Supreme Court - United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit - Julius Silverman, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee. Meyer Schwartz, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee. Robert L. Martin, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 275 F.2d 173 (D.C. Cir. 1960)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - United States of America, Appellee, v. Roland Richard Driver, A/K/a Roland Richard Mousseaux, Appellant., 945 F.2d 1410 (8th Cir. 1991)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - United States of America, Appellee, v. Mike Howard, Appellant., 507 F.2d 559 (8th Cir. 1974)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cassandra Y. Wilson, Defendant-Appellant., 988 F.2d 126 (9th Cir. 1993)

Text:

Mr. William H. Collins, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Messrs. Lewis Carroll and Joel Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before PRETTYMAN, WASHINGTON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted in eight counts. The alleged offenses involved two transactions. As to each transaction the indictment charged, in successive counts, (1) embezzlement, (2) larceny, (3) forgery of a check, and (4) uttering of a forged check. He was convicted on the first count and given a sentence of imprisonment, which was suspended.

Appellant urges error in the failure of the court to require the prosecution to elect as to counts, in the denial of motions for judgment of acquittal,1 in the court's instructions to the jury, in the return by the jury of an inconsistent and antagonistic verdict, and in the court's action in receiving a verdict of guilty on one count and directing a verdict of not guilty on another count. We have carefully considered the contentions, pressed upon us vigorously by counsel, but we find no error affecting substantial rights of the appellant.

Affirmed.

Notes:

1 See United States v. Daigle, 149 F.Supp. 409 (D.C.1957)

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access