UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT FOSTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

6th Cir. | 1969-03-14
No. 18602
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, and McALLIS-TER, Senior Circuit Judge.
407 F.2d 1335 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1969) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the defendant's claims of error regarding jury instructions could not be considered because timely objections were not made and the alleged errors were not plain error.


Facts & Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of conspiracy and substantive offenses related to transporting falsely made bank checks in interstate commerce. He appeale…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a conviction in the District Court on a four-count indict ment charging the defendant-appellant Foster with conspiracy and with the substantive offenses of transporting, falsely made bank checks in interstate commerce. He was sentenced to a total of eleven years’ imprisonment.

Foster claims error in the instructions of the District Court to the jury. The trouble with this contention is that timely objection to the instructions was not made. The instructions complained of were not manifestly prejudicial, nor so substantial as to result in a miscarriage of justice. In the absence of plain error, which in our judgment does not exist here, this claim of error cannot be considered. Rules. 30 and 52 (b), Fed.R.Crim.P.; United States v. Frazier, 385 F. 2d 901 (6th Cir. 1967).

We find no error in the admission of similar acts in evidence, United States v. Neal, 344 F. 2d 254 (6th Cir. 1965), or in sending exhibits to the jury room.

In our opinion, there was substantial evidence to support the judgment of conviction and no prejudicial error has intervened.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw