Task: songer_othcrim

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule for the defendant on grounds other than procedural grounds? For example, right to speedy trial, double jeopardy, confrontation, retroactivity, self defense." This includes the question of whether the defendant waived the right to raise some claim. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". 

PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of motion by appellees, filed January 24, 1950, asking this court to recall its mandate of February 12, 1949, and to direct the District Court “to reconsider this cause in the light of Section 7 of the Technical Changes Act of 1949, Public Law 378, 81st Congress, Chapter 720, 26 U.S.C.A. § 811(c), U.S. Cong. Ser. P. 2729, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Commissioner v. Church’s Estate, 335 U.S. 632, 69 S.Ct. 322; Estate of Spiegel v. Commissioner, 335 U.S. 701, 69 S.Ct. 301",
And it appearing that the granting of such motion would be superfluous and unnecessary, since the judgment of this court did not direct the entry of judgment for appellant but merely reversed the judgment of the District Court on the law as it then stood, and the mandate of this court “commanded that such further proceedings be had in said cause, in conformity with the aforesaid judgment of this court, as according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States, ought to be had, the said appeal notwithstanding”, thereby leaving the District Court free to consider the applicability of a supervening Act of Congress before entering a final judgment upon remand,
Now, therefore, without determining whether this court has power to recall its mandate issued at a prior term of court, it is ordered that the motion for recall of mandate be, and the same is hereby, denied.

Question: Did the court rule for the defendant on grounds other than procedural grounds? For example, right to speedy trial, double jeopardy, confrontation, retroactivity, self defense. This includes the question of whether the defendant waived the right to raise some claim.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: E