UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
GREGORY HERBERT SORENSON, APPELLANT
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 failure to object to jury instructions or jury misconduct at trial waives the right to raise these issues on appeal.
Defendant was convicted of bank robbery and sought a new trial based on allegedly erroneous jury instructions and a sleeping juror. The trial court de…
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 Juror Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gregory Herbert Sorenson was convicted in federal district court for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (bank robbery) and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment. The defendant brought a motion for a new trial based on two grounds: (1) the trial court’s instructions to the jury were erroneous in that they improperly commented on the evidence and incorrectly defined guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by using the word “probability”; and (2) one of the jurors was observed sleeping through portions of the trial. The defendant appeals on these same two grounds.
We refuse to reverse the conviction on either ground because counsel for defendant did not object at the time of trial. Indeed, after the jury had been instructed, the trial court specifically asked counsel if they had “any suggestions, observations, objections or anything of that kind” and defendant’s counsel said he saw no problems. Failure to object to jury instructions at the time of trial constitutes a waiver of the objection. See United States v. Collins, 552 F. 2d 243 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 870, 98 S.Ct. 214, 54 L.Ed.2d 149 (1977). Similarly, objections based on jury misconduct during the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal when counsel did not apprise the trial court of the alleged misconduct at trial. See United States v. Hester, 489 F. 2d 48 (8th Cir. 1973).
Moreover, we have read the district court’s instructions and comments to the jury and are satisfied that, read as a whole, they were not erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Laurence M. Anderson, 654 F.2d 1264 (8th Cir. 1981)
-
United States v. Hoelscher, 914 F.2d 1527 (8th Cir. 1990)
-
United States v. Dean, 667 F.2d 729 (8th Cir. 1982)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hill v. South Carolina, 434 U.S. 870 (U.S. 1977)
- Coronado v. United States, 434 U.S. 870 (U.S. 1977)
- United States v. Collins, 552 F.2d 243 (8th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Hester, 489 F.2d 48 (8th Cir. 1973)