W. H. Wattenburg and William P. Owens v. United States

Good Law
388 F.2d 853·1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8348
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 19, 196821301-_1California2,870 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hamley, J.

W. H. Wattenburg and William P. Owens were jointly charged, tried before a jury, and convicted, of stealing and conspiring to steal approximately one thousand red fir trees, Christmas-tree size, belonging to the United States. On their appeals, consolidated for disposition here, they argue that neither count of the indictment states an offense, the trial court erred in denying their motions to suppress certain evidence, admissible evidence was prejudicially excluded, the evidence does not support the convictions, and the court erred in instructing the jury.

We first consider the contention that the trial court erred in denying defendants’ motions to suppress certain evidence. Such a motion was first made on behalf of Owens, prior to trial, in connection with an indictment in which only he was named a defendant, and was denied. After that indictment had been superseded by the present one in which both Wattenburg and Owens were named, a pre-trial motion to suppress was made on behalf of Wattenburg and denied. During the course of the trial, both Wattenburg and Owens renewed their motions to suppress, and the motions were again denied.

All of the motions to suppress were made on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.