Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
DOLAN v. UNITED STATES, 1925 — 4 F.2d 251 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
DOLAN v. UNITED STATES
4 F.2d 251·United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·1925
Before DENISON and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges, and WESTENHAVER, District Judge.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
DOLAN v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
March 16, 1925.)
No. 4257.
1. Indictment and information <3=5166 — Under indictment for second offense, prior conviction must be shown before commission of later offense.
An allegation in an indictment that the offense is a second one is a conclusion, and it must be shown that the later offense was committed after conviction for the earlier one.
2. Indictment and information <3=196(5) — Indictment for third offense held sufficient.
In an indictment for a third offense, any lack of particularity in stating the date of first conviction! and second offense is cured by showing a conviction “for a second offense,” and by the presumption that such conviction was rightful.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky; Charles H. Moorman, Judge.
Criminal prosecution by the United States against Charles T. Dolan. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Walter P. Lincoln, of Louisville, Ky. (Edwards, Ogden & Peak, of Louisville, Ky., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Lilburn Phelps, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Louisville, Ky. (W. S. Ball, U. S. Atty., and Claude Hudgins, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Louisville, Ky., on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges, and WESTENHAVER, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
We have here conviction and punishment as for a third offense. An allegation in an indictment that an offense is a second one is a conclusion, and it should be sufficiently shown that the later offense occurred after the conviction for the earlier one. Even so, this indictment alleges and the proof shows a sufficiently early conviction as and for1 a second offense; it must be presumed that such conviction was rightful, and this presumption sufficiently cures any possible lack of particularity by not stating the date of the offense which was the basis of , that conviction.
The judgment is affirmed, and the mandate will issue forthwith.