Case ID: f2d_24/html/0204-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SCHINDLER v. UNITED STATES.
    Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    February 13, 1928.
    No. 5320.
    Criminal law <§=>1044, 1054(1) — Insufficiency of evidence held not presented for review, absent motion for directed verdict or exceptions to instructions.
    Where there was no motion for directed verdict, nor exceptions to instructions, judgment is not reviewable for alleged insufficiency of evidence.
    In Error to the District Court of the. United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of California; Paul J. McCormick, Judge.
    Criminal prosecution by the United States against Charles Schindler. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    Edward J. Kelly, of San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff in error. .
    Samuel W. McNabb, U. S. Atty., and Donald Armstrong, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal.
    Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit .Judges.
   DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.

From a judgment of conviction upon two counts, one charging unlawful possession, of intoxicating liquor, and the other unlawful possession of three stills, the defendant, Charles Schindler, brings error. The only point urged is the insufficiency of the evidence.

Admittedly, considerable quantities of whisky, the three still's, and other indicia of illicit transactions respecting, intoxicating liquors, were found on premises under defendant’s control, and while the circumstances showing knowledge and conscious participation may, in some respects, be conceded to be meager, they were sufficient to warrant submission to the jury. Such, doubtless, was the view of counsel for defendant at the time, for he made no suggestion to the contrary by motion for a directed verdict, or by exception to the instructions, or in any other manner. Hence the record exhibits no reviewable question. Bilboa v. United States (C. C. A. 9) 287 F. 125; Moore v. United States (C. C. A. 9) 1 F.(2d) 839; Lucis v. United States (C. C. A. 9) 2 F.(2d) 975; Utley v. United States (C. C. A. 9) 5 F.(2d) 963; Rossi v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 9 F.(2d) 362.

Affirmed.