JOE CARL NIXON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
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 record supports the finding that the actions occurred within the special maritime jurisdiction of the United States and that the verdicts on the two counts were not inconsistent.
The defendant, a deck hand on a shrimpboat, shot and killed the captain and wounded another deck hand after a fight and drinking bout. The defendant w…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joe Carl Nixon, a deck hand on the shrimpboat MISS LISA, shot and killed the captain of the trawler after a fist fight preceded by a drinking bout. David Harold McGraw, the other deck hand, jumped overboard. Nixon shot and wounded McGraw as he swam to safety. Nixon was found guilty on two counts, second degree murder1 and assault with intent to murder.2
First, we conclude that the record supports the finding that the actions leading to Nixon’s indictment took place on the high seas. The case is therefore within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.3 Jurisdiction, however, would have attached even had the trawler been in Mexican territorial waters since the offenses occurred on a vessel of United States ownership and registry. United States v. Rodgers, 1893, 150 U.S. 249, 14 S.Ct. 109, 37 L.Ed. 1071.
Second, the verdicts on the two counts of the indictment are not inconsistent. The record shows that the conviction under each count was sustained by the evidence. Dunn v. United States, 1932, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356. There is no general requirement for a separate trial on each count of the indictment of a single offender for multiple offenses. Rule 8(a), Fed.Rules Crim.Proc.; Griffin v. United States, 5th Cir. 1959, 272 F. 2d 801, opinion corrected and rehearing denied, 1960, 273 F. 2d 958.
We have reviewed appellant’s other specifications of error. They are without substance. The judgment is
Affirmed.
. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1111.
. 18 U.S.C.A. § 113(a).
. 18 U.S.C.A. § 7(1).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. United States, 401 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
-
United States v. Jefferson D. Ross, 439 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir. 1971)
-
Lucius J. Breeland v. United States, 396 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1968)
Authorities Cited
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1932)
- United States v. Rodgers, 150 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1893)
- Griffin v. United States, 272 F.2d 801 (5th Cir. 1959)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 273 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1960)
- Griffin v. United States, 273 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1960)