UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
JAMES HENRY LEYSITH, APPELLANT
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.
The court held that a jury instruction on false exculpatory statements was irrelevant and not plain error, and an additional issue regarding palm print admissibility was without substance.
Appellant was convicted of armed bank robbery. He challenged a jury instruction regarding false exculpatory statements, arguing it was irrelevant and …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure Rule 52(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Seeking reversal of his conviction for armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), the appellant challenges as prejudicial a portion of the District Court’s charge to the jury. The jury was informed that, in determining guilt or innocence, it might consider any false exculpatory statements made by the defendant. Since the record reveals no evidentiary basis for the instruction, this portion of the court’s charge is clearly irrelevant.
Rule 30 of tne Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, precludes the assignment as error of any jury instruction not objected to at trial, and no such objection was made in the present case. It is not urged, nor could it be, that the extraneous portion of the charge was so prejudicial to the defendant as to constitute “plain error” in the sense of Rule 52(b) warranting notice and reversal by this court despite the appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 30.
At oral argument, appellant’s counsel abandoned as without substance an additional issue raised in his brief, the admissibility of a palm print in evidence. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). The conviction is accordingly
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435 (9th Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966)