Case Name: COLLINS v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1914-11-10
Citations: 219 F. 670
Docket Number: No. 3981
Parties: COLLINS v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: Before HOOK and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and AMIDON, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 219
Pages: 670–675

Head Matter:
COLLINS v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
November 10, 1914.
On Petition for Rehearing, January 11, 1915.)
No. 3981.
1. Criminal Law <§=>274 — Plea—Withdrawal—Permission—Discretion— Demurrer to Indictment.
It was not an abuse .of discretion to deny an application for leave to withdraw a plea of not guilty, that accused might demur to the indictment, because the co.urt had previously sustained a demurrer to a similar indictment against another, which ruling was subsequently reversed, since accused could not be prejudiced or helped by such ruling, except as it might finally result in an authoritative declaration of some principle of law affecting every one.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 632, 633; Dec. Dig. <§=>274.]
2. Courts <§=>90 — Trial Court — Yiews of Law.
A trial court does not irrevocably commit itself to its views .of the law, even in the case in which they are announced, when there is ño invasion of some constitutional safeguard, like immunity from double jeopardy, nor prejudice to defendant in making his defense.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 313-321, 351; Dec. Dig. <§=>90.]
On Petition for Rehearing.
3. Criminal Law <§=>1090 — Bill of Exceptions — Necessity.
Rulings during the trial of an action at law, not being inherently a part of the record to be reviewed on writ of error, must be embodied in a bill of exceptions.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dee. Dig. <§=>1090.]
4. Criminal Law <§=>1091 — Appeal—Bill of Exceptions — Sufficiency.
Where an alleged bill of exceptions contained no reference to rulings at the trial, and did not show whether any rulings were invoked, or whether the court made any, and it did not appear therefrom that an occasion for a ruling arose, or that the court ruled in fact, except as it might be inferred from the reason given by counsel for the exceptions, it was insufficient.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2815, 2816, 2818, 2819, 2823, 2824, 2828-2833, 2843, 2931-2933, 2943; Dec. Dig." <§=>1091.]
5. Criminal Law <§=>1091 — Bill of Exceptions — Time of Exceptions.
Where a trial occurred in January, 1913, and an alleged bill of exceptions was served and allowed in March, reciting, “The defendant further excepts for the reason that the court erred” in doing thus and so, it was not thereby made to appear that the exceptions were taken at the trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2815, 2816, 2818, 2819, 2823, 2824, 2828-2833, 2843, 2931-2933, 2943; Dec. Dig. <§=>1091.]
6. Criminal Law <§=>1091 — Bill of Exceptions — Taking—Time.
Though a bill of exceptions may be drawn and allowed after trial, it must show that the exceptions preserved were taken at the trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2815, 2816, 2818, 28Í9, 2823, 2824, 2828-2833, 2843, 2931-2933, 2943; Dec. Dig. <§=>1091.]
7. Criminal Law <§=901 — Trial—Questions or Law or Fact — Demurrer to Evidence — Waiver.
Alleged error in overruling defendant’s oral demurrer to tlie government’s testimony is waived, where defendant thereupon introduces testimony in his own behalf.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2124; Dee. Dig. <§=901.]
8. Criminal Law <§=1121 — Assignments of Error — Keview.
An assignment that tho court erred in denying defendant’s request for a directed verdict was' not reviewable, where there was nothing in the record showing when the request was made.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2938, 2939; Dec. Dig. <§=1121.]
9. Criminal Law <§=1129 — Appeal and Error — Assignments of Error.
An assignment that the court erred in entering judgment against the defendant, and in favor of the United States, was too general to present any question for feview.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2954-2964; Dec. Dig. <§=1129.]
10. Criminal Law <§=1091 — -Bill of Exceptions — Motion in Arrest.
A motion in arrest of judgment is part of the record, and an exception to an order denying the same is saved in the order, and hence need not be incorporated in the bill of exceptions.
• [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, .Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2815, 2816, 2818, 2819, 2823, 2824, 2828-2833, 2843, 2931-2933, 2943; Dee. Dig. <§=1091.]
• 11. Criminal Law <§=1156 — Appeal—Motion for New Trial.
A motion by accused for a new trial is addressed to the discretion of the court, and an order denying the same will not be reviewed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3067-3071; Dec. Dig. <§=1156.]
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma; Ralph E. Campbell, Judge.
Jack Collins was convicted of introducing liquor into the Indian country, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
W. J. Sullivan, of Muskogee, Old., for plaintiff in error.
D. H. Linebaugh, U. S. Atty., and Erank Lee, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Muskogee, Old.
Before HOOK and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and AMIDON, District Judge.

Opinion:
HOOK, Circuit Judge.
Collins was indicted for introducing liquor into the Indian country. He waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty. When the case came on for trial, he asked leave to withdraw his plea, so that he could demur to the indictment. His motion was denied, and he was tried, convicted, and sentenced.
It is admitted that granting or denying such a motion is a matter of discretion, but it is urged that the trial court abused its discretion, because it had then recently sustained a demurrer to a like indictment against one Wright, and that until reversed that ruling stood as the law of the land, to be obeyed by the court. The Supreme Court afterwards reversed the ruling in the Wright Case, 229 U. S. 226, 33 Sup. Ct. 630, 57 L. Ed. 1160; but it is contended that its decision does not relate back to cure a previous abuse of discretion by the trial court. The statement of the contention shows its unsoundness. There was no abuse of discretion. Collins was a stranger to the Wright Case, and he could be neither prejudiced nor helped by it, excepting as it might finally result in the authoritative declaration of some principle of law affecting everybody. He had no legal interest in a ruling at the trial of another case. '
W. J. Sullivan and R. Emmett Stewart, both of Muskogee, Old., for petitioner.
A trial court does not irrevocably commit itself to its views of the law, even in the case in which they are announced, when there is no invasion of some constitutional safeguard, like immunity from double jeopardy, nor prejudice to the defendant in making his defense. Ordinarily a trial court may correct its misconceptions as it goes along. Certainly it is not required to carry those of ose case over into another.
The sentence is affirmed,