O'NEAL v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 12333.,12333. |
| Citation | 95 US App. DC 386,222 F.2d 411 |
| Parties | Melvina O'NEAL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
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.
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 motion, however, and we agree with the Municipal Court of Appeals that he correctly denied it.
The only other ground for reversal is the contention that the trial court erred in permitting one of the officers to testify that he found 34 capsules of heroin hydrochloride on the ground outside the house and beneath an open window of the second story apartment where appellant and other persons were assembled. With respect to these capsules the Municipal Court of Appeals said in its opinion: "We find nothing in the record to show that any objection was made to this evidence." Nor do we find any indication of an objection.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Seawright
...items which the defendant 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......
-
State v. Wamre
...which the defendant seeks to suppress." 5 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.2(a) (3d ed.1996); see also O'Neal v. United States, 222 F.2d 411, 412 (D.C.Cir.1955); United States v. Cardiges, 881 F.Supp. 717, 725 (D.N.H.1995); State v. Bell, 832 S.W.2d 583, 587 (Tenn.Cr.Ct.App.1991); P......
-
Southern v. State
...basis 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, ......
-
United States v. Lewis
...332, 333, 248 F.2d 654, 655 (1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 963, 78 S.Ct. 552, 2 L.Ed.2d 537 (1958); O'Neal v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 386, 387, 222 F.2d 411, 412 (1955); Fisher v. United States, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 247, 248, 205 F.2d 702, 703, cert. denied, 346 U.S. 872, 74 S.Ct. 122, 98......