Opinion ID: 483158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Discussion of Facts

Text: 22 Morton did not move for judgment of acquittal either at the close of the government's case, or at the close of all the evidence. The government argues that Morton's failure to move for judgment of acquittal precludes appellate review of his claim of insufficient evidence absent a manifest miscarriage of justice. 23 Rule 29 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure allows, but does not require, the defendant to move for judgment of acquittal. Numerous cases, however, have developed the rule that [w]here no motion for judgment of acquittal was made, it is the general rule that an appellate court is not required to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Cooper, 321 F.2d 456, 457 (6th Cir.1963) (citations omitted); United States v. Ross, 477 F.2d 551, 552 (6th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Sain v. United States, 414 U.S. 912 (1973); United States v. Pasquinzo, 334 F.2d 74, 75 (6th Cir.1964). 24 We have considered this situation in other criminal appeals. 1 Professor Wright states that [t]here is a seemingly well-settled doctrine that if no motion for judgment of acquittal was made in the trial court, an appellate court cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence. 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 469, at 672 (2d ed. 1982) (footnote omitted); United States v. Long, 537 F.2d 1341, 1342 (5th Cir.1976); United States v. Luther, 521 F.2d 408, 411 (9th Cir.1975). 25 We are not called upon, therefore, to review the sufficiency of the evidence without a showing by defendant of manifest miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Long, supra, (Appellant did not move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence; thus, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review absent a manifest miscarriage of justice.) (citation omitted). 26 Here, Morton's trial attorney did not move for acquittal either at the close of the government's case or at the close of all the evidence. Therefore, absent the required showing of a miscarriage of justice, the question whether there was a sufficiency of the evidence to sustain Morton's convictions need not be addressed by this court. Upon examination of the entire record, we are satisfied that defendant has not carried this substantial burden on appeal. 27 The strong circumstantial evidence of Morton's guilt herein detailed and the co-defendant's implication of Morton is entirely sufficient for a jury to convict him. 2 Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.