Court Opinion

ID: 9639685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:44:46.486245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:20.999256
License: Public Domain

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
These appellants were convicted of conspiring to violate the internal revenue laws relating to intoxicating liquor. They seek to reverse the judgment upon the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, and that prejudicial procedural errors were committed in the course of the trial.'
The record discloses that these appellants moved for a directed verdict at the close of the Government’s case, but thereafter they introduced evidence in their own behalf, and failed to renew their motion at the close of all the evidence. The failure to renew operated to waive the benefit of the motion made,1 and the question of the sufficiency of the evidence was not properly saved for review by this court.2 It is true that the question may and should be raised by the court of its own motion, if necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice, but this is not such a case. We have examined the record, and have found it to contain ample evidence to support the judgment as to each appellant. The court below declined to set aside the conviction of Mrs. Lewis, but recognized there were extenuating circumstances in her favor and gave her a very light sentence, suspending the execution thereof entirely and placing her on probation.
The other questions raised with respect to rulings upon the admissibility of evidence and the charge of the court have been reviewed and are without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.

 Huffman v. United States, 8 Cir., 259 F. 35; Goldberg v. United States, 5 Cir., 297 F. 98; Girson v. United States, 9 Cir., 88 F.2d 358; Cox v. United States, 8 Cir., 96 F.2d 41; Crabb v. United States, 10 Cir., 99 F.2d 325; Lambert v. United States, 5 Cir., 101 F.2d 960; Hemphill v. United States, 9 Cir., 112 F.2d 505.

 Lockhart v. United States, 6 Cir., 264 F. 14, certiorari denied, 254 U.S. 645, 41 S.Ct. 14, 65 L.Ed. 455; Clements v. United States, 9 Cir., 297 F. 206, certiorari denied, 266 U.S. 605, 45 S.Ct. 92, 69 L.Ed. 464; Mitchell v. United States, 9 Cir., 23 F.2d 260, certiorari denied, 277 U.S. 594, 48 S.Ct. 530, 72 L.Ed. 1005; McAdams v. United States, 8 Cir., 74 F.2d 37; Jordan v. United States, 5 Cir., 120 F.2d 65, certiorari denied, 314 U.S. 608, 62 S.Ct 102, 86 L.Ed. 489.