UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN JAMES WENDT, DEFENDANT-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 the defendant's contentions regarding insufficient evidence and the failure to give a contemporaneous cautionary instruction were without merit.
The defendant was convicted of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and the lack of a cauti…
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 Cautionary Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Wendt appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict of guilty of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of -18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. We find his contentions that there is insufficient evidence to convict and that the court erroneously failed to give a cautionary instruction contemporaneously with the admission of evidence of a prior conviction to be without merit and affirm.
No motion for a judgment of acquittal was made by Wendt. The question of the sufficiency of the evidence was thus not preserved for appellate review absent a manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. McGlamory, 5 Cir. 1971, 441 F. 2d 130; United States v. Penner, 5 Cir. 1970, 425 F. 2d 729. We find none here. On the contrary, the evidence of Wendt's guilt is overwhelming.
Wendt concedes, as he must, that it is proper to impeach the credibility of a defendant by showing prior convictions. United States v. Bland, 5 Cir. 1970, 432 F. 2d 96, cert, denied 401 U.S. 912, 91 S.Ct. 877, 27 L.Ed.2d 810; United States v. Justice, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F. 2d 30. He also concedes that no request for a cautionary instruction was made at any time, although such an instruction was given during the court’s charge to the jury. Wendt nevertheless contends that the court’s failure to instruct the jury at the time the testimony was given is plain error. Under the circumstances here shown we dismiss this contention as frivolous.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Perez, 526 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1976)
-
United States v. Dominguez, 615 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1980)
-
United States v. Jones, 486 F.2d 1081 (5th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. McGLAMORY, 441 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Bland v. United States, 401 U.S. 912 (U.S. 1971)
- Am. Art Indus., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 401 U.S. 912 (U.S. 1971)
- United States v. Penner, 425 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Justice, 431 F.2d 30 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Bland, 432 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1970)