From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lipsey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 7, 1971
438 F.2d 974 (9th Cir. 1971)

Opinion

No. 26192.

February 19, 1971. Rehearing Denied April 7, 1971.

Burton Marks (argued), of Marks, Sherman London, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellants.

Richard L. Jaeger (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., Michael Heuer, Asst. Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before KOELSCH, ELY and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.


Appellants were indicted, tried by a jury, and convicted of receiving, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315, stolen stock certificates which had been transported in interstate commerce.

With the exception of one ruling which excluded evidence offered for purposes of impeachment, we find appellants' assignments of error to be without substance. After an exhaustive study of the record, we hold that the evidentiary ruling, even if erroneous, was harmless within the meaning of Rule 52(a), FRCrimP. Taken, as a whole, the court's instructions to the jury, which are now challenged, fairly stated the applicable law and, in any event, were not objected to at the trial. In the absence of plain error, which does not here exist, the instructions cannot be attacked on appeal.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Lipsey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 7, 1971
438 F.2d 974 (9th Cir. 1971)
Case details for

United States v. Lipsey

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Bernard LIPSEY and Daniel Wexler…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 7, 1971

Citations

438 F.2d 974 (9th Cir. 1971)

Citing Cases

United States v. Scully

As to instruction 25 on conspiracy, there was no objection made when the instruction was discussed with the…

United States v. Trejo

Defense counsel did not request such an instruction, nor was an objection raised to the instructions as were…