D. L. JOLLY, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by abundant evidence and no prejudicial error was committed during the trial.
The appellant was found guilty by a jury on four counts of attempting to evade federal income taxes. He was sentenced to a prison term and a significa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Authority For Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A jury found the appellant guilty upon four counts of an indictment charging attempts to evade federal income taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 145(b), 1952 Ed. Of theretofore unblemished reputation, and a leader in his community, the appellant upon conviction was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and sentenced to a term of ten years in prison.
Sixteen grounds for reversal are asserted by able counsel on this appeal. We find merit in none of them. There was abundant evidence to support the jury’s verdict. No prejudicial error was committed in the admission of evidence, nor in the court’s refusal to give certain instructions requested by the appellant. While it would have been preferable for the trial judge to have included in his instructions an explicit recapitulation of each of the appellant’s various theories of defense, his omission to do so did not in our opinion constitute prejudicial error in this case. The instructions as given were otherwise complete and free from error. Nor did the court err in overruling the motion for a mistrial and the subsequent motion for a new trial.
The sentence imposed by the trial judge was in our opinion extremely severe. Since it was within his statutory authority, however, we are without power to review it.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drybrough v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 238 F.2d 735 (6th Cir. 1956)
-
Roth v. United States, 255 F.2d 440 (2d Cir. 1958)
-
Shepard v. United States, 257 F.2d 293 (6th Cir. 1958)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence