From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Bollin

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Mar 21, 1984
729 F.2d 1083 (6th Cir. 1984)

Summary

holding that there was no error in the district court's denial of a motion for a continuance filed on the first day of a trial

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Rodriguez-Marrero

Opinion

No. 83-5589.

Argued February 14, 1984.

Decided March 21, 1984. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 24, 1984.

Donald Dawson (argued), Federal Public Defender, Nashville, Tenn., for defendant-appellant.

Joe B. Brown, U.S. Atty., John P. Williams, Asst. U.S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Before EDWARDS and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and UNTHANK, District Judge.

Honorable G. Wix Unthank, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.


Defendant James Bollin appeals from a conviction by a jury on two counts of forgery and uttering under 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 495 (1976).

There is no dispute over the fact that Bollin cashed the check in question at the Birdwell Grocery, thereafter paying Birdwell $50 that he, Bollin, owed him, and paying off a $10 debt to one Casteel who had given him a ride to the grocery store. Appellant's claim is that the payee of the check, Brown, an 83-year-old man, had signed his name as endorser of the check after he, Bollin, had given him the full amount of the check in cash. The government, however, presented six witnesses who testified that Brown always signed his checks with an "X" because he could not write his name, and other witnesses who testified as to Brown's incompetence at the time of this transaction, and as to his complaints that his checks were being stolen.

Our review of this record convinces us that Brown was properly declared an unavailable witness by the District Judge. Further, we hold that no prejudicial error took place during the course of this trial. We also rule that the District Judge was not in error in refusing a continuance on the day of trial.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Bollin

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Mar 21, 1984
729 F.2d 1083 (6th Cir. 1984)

holding that there was no error in the district court's denial of a motion for a continuance filed on the first day of a trial

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Rodriguez-Marrero
Case details for

United States v. Bollin

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JAMES ALEX BOLLIN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Mar 21, 1984

Citations

729 F.2d 1083 (6th Cir. 1984)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Rodriguez-Marrero

In fact, having received the court's warning that the district court's backlog did not allow it to grant any…

DeCosey v. Rivard

Therefore, the trial court did not err by refusing a continuance on the second day of trial. United States v.…