Smith v. United States

Decision Date03 January 1927
Docket NumberNo. 4460.,4460.
PartiesSMITH v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

William Wendell, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Peyton Gordon and Raymond Neudecker, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and HATFIELD, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appellant was convicted in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia of the crime of robbery and sentenced to serve a term of 15 years in the penitentiary. The facts are substantially as follows:

As Charles Turner, in the early morning of July 26, 1925, was walking toward his home, 1231 Massachusetts avenue, S. E., near which he then was, a man afterward identified as Belhummer robbed him, at the point of a revolver, of a diamond pin worth about $700, a ring of considerable value, and $47 in money. Belhummer then ran to a Ford sedan, standing not far distant, and escaped. Turner noticed that another person was in the automobile as it moved away. Soon thereafter Belhummer and appellant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, were arrested, and Turner identified Belhummer as the man who had robbed him. Belhummer freely confessed his part in the crime, entered a plea of guilty, and was sentenced to 15 years in the penitentiary.

Belhummer told the detectives that he met defendant before the night of the robbery in a poolroom on Ninth street; that defendant told him he knew a man named Turner, who wore diamonds and was reputed to carry a considerable sum of money around with him; that it would be easy to "take" Turner; that he (Smith) would do the job himself, but for the fact that Turner knew him; and Smith offered to point Turner out to Belhummer. Defendant thereupon procured a gun and cap for Belhummer, who had neither, and arranged a meeting on the Saturday night following, which was the night the robbery was committed. The gun and cap were left meanwhile in defendant's Ford machine. Between 11 and 12 o'clock on Saturday night, as previously arranged, defendant and Belhummer met, and defendant drove his automobile by Turner's house three or four times; defendant finally pointing out Turner to Belhummer. Defendant then waited for Belhummer to commit the robbery, and thereafter drove away with him in the machine. They divided the money immediately, and later defendant sold the pin to a Mr. Cady for $200, and gave Belhummer half the proceeds as his share. Defendant also gave Belhummer $35 and took the ring himself.

Cady testified that he bought the diamond pin from defendant for $200, and later turned it over to the police department; that defendant then told him he needed the money for some one for whom he was selling the ring.

A police officer testified that he was present at a conversation between Cady and defendant, after defendant's arrest; that prior to this conversation defendant had denied all knowledge of the pin; that Cady then was brought in, and, when asked about his purchase of the pin from defendant, stated he had rather not talk about it in defendant's presence. Finally Cady said to defendant: "Go ahead and tell about the pin. I don't want to tell anything about it. I don't want to be called a squawker." Defendant then said: "All right, Cady; go ahead and tell them. There will be no hard feelings one way or the other as far as I am concerned." Cady then said: "I bought the pin from Smith and paid $200 for it." Defendant then was asked what he had to say about the matter and responded: "It is a long story. I will tell it in court. I would rather see my lawyer."

Ethel V. Murphy, connected with the rooming house where Belhummer was staying at the time of the robbery, testified that defendant visited Belhummer on one or more occasions shortly after the robbery, and on one occasion at least came there in a Ford sedan. There was also testimony that at the time of defendant's arrest there was found in his Ford sedan the revolver and cap used by Belhummer at the time of the robbery.

Belhummer had made a detailed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Woelfle v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 1938
    ...Evidence, pp. 4806, 4808; People v. Marsiglia, 52 Cal.App. 385, 198 P. 1007; Randazzo v. United States (8th Cir.), 300 F. 794; Smith v. United States, 17 F.2d 223; v. United States (8th Cir.), 35 F.2d 483; Di Carlo v. United States (2nd Cir.), 6 F.2d 364; St. Clair v. United States, 154 U.S......
  • Belton v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 15, 1958
    ...testimony about material facts in the cause * * *." See Wheeler v. United States, 93 U.S. App.D.C. 159, 211 F.2d 19; Smith v. United States, 57 App.D.C. 71, 17 F.2d 223. 3 3 Wharton, Criminal Evidence § 948 (12th ed. 1955): After presenting a witness to the jury as worthy of belief, a party......
  • Wheeler v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • November 27, 1953
    ...by no means so limited. It was used explicitly as evidence of the truth of its contents. It does not seem to me that Smith v. United States, 57 App.D.C. 71, 17 F.2d 223, Bedell v. United States, 63 App.D.C. 31, 68 F.2d 776, or Di Carlo v. United States, 2 Cir., 6 F.2d 364, certiorari denied......
  • Young v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • April 8, 1954
    ...by the court so that the jury would not consider it as testimonial evidence against the accused. So, too, in Smith v. United States, 57 App.D.C. 71, 72, 17 F.2d 223, 224, where the trial court cautioned the jury that the statement "which was not made in court" was admissible simply to impea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT