222 F.2d 411 (D.C. Cir. 1955), 12333, O'Neal v. United States

Docket Nº12333.
Citation222 F.2d 411
Party NameMelvina O'NEAL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Case DateMay 05, 1955
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Page 411

222 F.2d 411 (D.C. Cir. 1955)

Melvina O'NEAL, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 12333.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 5, 1955

Argued Jan. 27, 1955.

Page 412

Mr. Charles A. Schaeffer, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. Harold H. Greene, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U.S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll and Robert J. Asman, Jr., Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. MILLER and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Melvina O'Neal was found guilty by a jury in the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia of maintaining a common nuisance by keeping a place resorted to by narcotic drug addicts for the purpose of using narcotic drugs, in violation of § 33-416, D.C.Code 1951. The Municipal Court of Appeals affirmed and we granted an appeal. Reference is made to that court's opinion, reported in 1954, 105 A.2d 739, 741, for a statement of the facts.

Some days prior to the trial the appellant filed a written motion 'that the evidence taken from her at the time of her arrest be suppressed at the trial herein, as the arrest was illegal, and the subsequent search of her premises was in violation of her Constitutional rights.' The articles which appellant desired to be suppressed for use as evidence were not enumerated or described in the motion, nor were they identified at the hearing on the motion. The motion was therefore insufficient and need not have been considered. The trial judge entertained the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • 807 A.2d 13 (Md. 2002), 109, Southern v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 17, 2002
    ...for their motion." 20 Cal.4th 119, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275, 973 P.2d 52, 59 (1999) (citations omitted); see also O'Neal v. United States, 222 F.2d 411, 412 (D.C.Cir. 1955) (stating that motion to suppress must identify the evidence that the defendant seeks to suppress); Cummings v. People, ......
  • 593 N.E.2d 1003 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1992), 1-90-0935, People v. Seawright
    • United States
    • Illinois Court of Appeals of Illinois
    • May 15, 1992
    ...seeks to suppress." (4 W. LaFave Search and Seizure § 11.2(a), at 214 (2d ed. 1986), citing O'Neal v. United States (D.C.Cir.1955), 222 F.2d 411.) Waiver aside, however, we find no error in the admission of any evidence discovered by the police in the search of the defendant's home. Th......
  • 275 S.W.3d 872 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009), PD-0144-08, Amador v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals of Texas Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • January 14, 2009
    ...that, under such circumstances, the trial court could properly deny the motion to suppress as inadequate. See O'Neal v. United States, 222 F.2d 411, 412 (D.C.Cir.1955); State v. Bell, 832 S.W.2d 583, 587 (Tenn.Crim.App.1991); Norman v. State, 302 So.2d 254, 257 (Miss.1974). In the instant c......
  • 280 A.2d 153 (Conn.Cir.A.D. 1971), CR 13-12860, State v. Larko
    • United States
    • Connecticut Circuit Court of Connecticut
    • March 26, 1971
    ...158 of the property or articles sought to be suppressed was not annexed to the motion. In O'Neal v. United States, 95 U.S.App. D.C. 386, 222 F.2d 411, 412, the accused was convicted of a violation of a narcotics statute. Prior to trial, she filed a written motion 'that the evidence taken fr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • 593 N.E.2d 1003 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1992), 1-90-0935, People v. Seawright
    • United States
    • Illinois Court of Appeals of Illinois
    • May 15, 1992
    ...seeks to suppress." (4 W. LaFave Search and Seizure § 11.2(a), at 214 (2d ed. 1986), citing O'Neal v. United States (D.C.Cir.1955), 222 F.2d 411.) Waiver aside, however, we find no error in the admission of any evidence discovered by the police in the search of the defendant's home. Th......
  • 807 A.2d 13 (Md. 2002), 109, Southern v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 17, 2002
    ...for their motion." 20 Cal.4th 119, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275, 973 P.2d 52, 59 (1999) (citations omitted); see also O'Neal v. United States, 222 F.2d 411, 412 (D.C.Cir. 1955) (stating that motion to suppress must identify the evidence that the defendant seeks to suppress); Cummings v. People, ......
  • 275 S.W.3d 872 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009), PD-0144-08, Amador v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals of Texas Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • January 14, 2009
    ...that, under such circumstances, the trial court could properly deny the motion to suppress as inadequate. See O'Neal v. United States, 222 F.2d 411, 412 (D.C.Cir.1955); State v. Bell, 832 S.W.2d 583, 587 (Tenn.Crim.App.1991); Norman v. State, 302 So.2d 254, 257 (Miss.1974). In the instant c......
  • 280 A.2d 153 (Conn.Cir.A.D. 1971), CR 13-12860, State v. Larko
    • United States
    • Connecticut Circuit Court of Connecticut
    • March 26, 1971
    ...158 of the property or articles sought to be suppressed was not annexed to the motion. In O'Neal v. United States, 95 U.S.App. D.C. 386, 222 F.2d 411, 412, the accused was convicted of a violation of a narcotics statute. Prior to trial, she filed a written motion 'that the evidence taken fr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results