George Charles Matthews v. United States

A jury trial resulted in appellant’s conviction of two Dyer Act offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 2312 , and one smuggling offense, 18 U.S.C. § 545 .

A motion for acquittal on the smuggling conviction only was filed and granted by the trial court.

The appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 1294 is based on (1) insufficiency of the evidence, and (2) failure of the trial court to broaden its instruction on circumstantial evidence.

Appellant did not move for acquittal on the Dyer Act charges, as he did on the smuggling charge. The failure is fatal. Lupo v. United States, 322 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1963). Although this circuit has considered the contention of insufficient evidence notwithstanding the lack of such a motion [Robbins v. United States, 345 F.2d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1965)], it has done so only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. Beckett v. United States, 379 F.2d 863, 864 (9th Cir. 1967). Appellant’s conviction resulted from a fair trial.

The jury was instructed on the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, that as a general rule the law makes no distinction, and that no conviction can be sustained unless guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt from…