Case ID: f2d_448/html/0768-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Earl STEPHENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 71-1438
    Summary Calendar.
    
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 13, 1971.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1971.
    Henry L. McGee, Jr., Tyler, Tex., (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
    Roby Hadden, U. S. Atty,, Tyler, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
    Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG, and DYER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       [1] Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
    
   PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from a conviction for fraud by wire in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343. We affirm.

The refusal to grant a second continuance at the request of appellant because of the absence of a defense witness was in the discretion of the trial court, and that discretion was not abused. United States v. Pierce, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 678. Similarly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence since that evidence, the testimony of the formerly absent witness, was merely cumulative and did not raise a substantial probability that its admission at a new trial would produce a different result. See United States v. Rodriguez, 5 Cir. 1971, 437 F.2d 940; United States v. Hersh, 5 Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 835; Reno v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 340 F.2d 307; Ledet v. United States, 5 Cir. 1962, 297 F.2d 737, 739.

Affirmed.