Court Opinion

ID: 9702033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:50:48.660281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:32.787180
License: Public Domain

*392Markell, J.,
delivered the following concurring opinion.
I concur in the decision and in the opinion, except' the implication that the “plain error” provision in Rule 6(g) is not applicable to absence of legally sufficient evidence to convict. This provision of Rule 6(g) is similar to Rule 52 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In United States v. Norton, 2 Circ., 179 F. 2d 527, the defendant was convicted of violation of the Selective Service Act in failing to register. In reversing the judgment for absence of evidence legally sufficient to convict, the court, by Judge Swan, said, “* * *, we conclude that the crime for which he was indicted was not proven. It is true that the argument which has brought us to this conclusion was first advanced in the brief on appeal; it was not presented at the trial. However, Rule 52 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U. S. C. A. provides: ‘Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.’ There can be no plainer error or defect than the absence of evidence justifying a conviction.” 179 F. 2d 529. In Hemphill v. United States, 9 Circ., 112 F. 2d 505, the court refused to examine the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict on the ground, that they were precluded by the introduction of evidence by the defense, after the denial of a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the Government’s case and the failure to renew the motion at the close of all the evidence. On certiorari the judgment was reversed in the following per curiam opinion, “The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals with directions to consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Hemphill v. United States, 312 U. S. 657, 61 S. Ct. 729, 85 L. Ed. 1106. See also United States v. Renee Ice Cream Co., 3 Circ., 160 F. 2d 353, 355 (per Goodrich, C. J.). Rule 6(g), including the “plain error” exception, was in force before and after the constitutional amendment [Art. 15, Sec. 5] *393which became effective December 1, 1950. Wright v. State, 198 Md. 163, 81 A. 2d 602. Manifestly the constitutional amendment and the statute only broadened the power of the court from advising a verdict of “not guilty” to directing one. It did not narrow or impair the rule making power or the scope of Rule 6(c). In the instant case I agree that defendant’s contention as to “plain error” is in fact a frivolous afterthought. I concurred in the Auchincloss case but understood it as finding no “plain error” worthy of discussion.