LANHAM
v.
UNITED STATES
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 the evidence presented was sufficient to support a conviction for housebreaking and larceny, and the jury instructions were adequate.
Appellant was convicted of housebreaking and larceny. The primary evidence against him was his presence in a car outside the looted premises during th…
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 Housebreaking cases and more on FLexlaw
PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.
Appellant attacks his conviction and sentence for housebreaking and la-rceny. He claims the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal or to instruct the jury that silent presence at the scene of the crimes was insufficient evidence upon which to convict.
Although it is argued that appellant’s presence in an automobile in front of the looted premises during commission of the crimes was the only evidence against him, we gather a different impression from the record. We think the evidence tended to show a chain of circumstances from wthich a reasonable conclusion of guilty participation by appellant, within the purview of 22 D.C.Code (1940) § 105,1 2can be fairly drawn. Obviously too, this was the conclusion of both judge and jury.
In response to an oral
request to instruct the jury that mere silent presence was insufficient to convict, the court did add to instructions relating to an accomplice. Reading the charge as a whole, we think it was sufficient.
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
. 22 D.C.Code (1940) § 105.
“In prosecutions for any criminal offense all persons advising, inciting, or conniving at the offense, or aiding or abetting the principal offender, shall be charged as principals and not as accessories * *
. Although the Government makes no . point of the matter and our ruling in this case is not influenced by a failure to submit the requested instruction in writing before the charge, as contemplated by Rule 30, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. we think it well to reiterate the importance of following the rule, and if the charge is considered insufficient in any respect, to make a specific objection with the ground upon which it is based. See Villaroman v. United States, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. —, 184 F. 2d 261.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. United States, 257 F.2d 188 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
-
Proctor v. United States, 218 F.2d 867 (D.C. Cir. 1955)
Authorities Cited
- Villaroman v. United States, 184 F.2d 261 (D.C. Cir. 1950)