Berneau v. United States
| Decision Date | 21 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 3140.,3140. |
| Citation | 188 A.2d 301 |
| Parties | Howard H. BERNEAU, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, John E. Hogan, and Robert D. Devlin, Asst. U. S. Attys., for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
We are again asked to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence introduced to sustain a conviction of soliciting for lewd and immoral purposes.1 Appellant urges that the evidence introduced by the government to corroborate the testimony of the arresting officer was insufficient under the Kelly case,2 and that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for judgment of acquittal.
The evidence may be summarized as follows: A police officer assigned to the Morals Division testified that while driving in an automobile he noticed appellant, dressed in female attire, motioning him to the curb. The officer circled the block, and pulled over to the curb. Appellant approached the car and said, "Do you have anything on your mind?" The officer responded, "Anything is about it," and appellant asked him how much he was spending. The officer said he did not have much money, and appellant invited him to make an offer. When the officer stated he had approximately twelve dollars, appellant agreed to perform an act of perversion. He told the officer to park his car and come with him. At that point the officer stepped out of the vehicle and placed appellant under arrest.
Another officer testified that he saw appellant approach the first officer's car, that a conversation took place which he did not hear, and that the first officer got out of the car and placed his hand on appellant. The second officer also testified as to the female attire of appellant. No testimony was offered by or on behalf of appellant.
We have recently had two occasions to consider the requirements suggested in the Kelly case, and in both instances3 we held that the requirements were complied with. In this case the government's testimony as to the time and place of the events was uncontradicted. There was corroborating testimony from an officer that he saw appellant conversing with the arresting officer, and that he saw the latter place his hand on appellant. Appellant did not introduce any evidence of his good character, and there was no denial that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Moses
...of sodomy violates this very section of the Code, e. g., Gaithor v. United States, D.C.App., 251 A.2d 644 (1969); Berneau v. United States, D.C.App., 188 A.2d 301 (1963), although the practice logically has been to charge the female solicitor under the former prohibition and to charge the m......
-
Riley v. United States
...Gaithor v. United States, D.C.App., 251 A.2d 644 (1969); Willis v. United States, D.C.App., 198 A.2d 751 (1964); Berneau v. United States, D.C. App., 188 A.2d 301 (1963); Alexander v. United States, D.C.App., 187 A.2d 901 (1963); Reed v. United States, D.C.Mun. App., 93 A.2d 568 (1953); Bic......
-
Harris v. United States
...age or over" for the purpose of prostitution. Indeed, this section applies to solicitation for homosexual acts. See Berneau v. United States, D.C.App., 188 A.2d 301 (1963); and Alexander v. United States, D.C.App., 187 A.2d 901 (1963). Sections 22-2704 through 22-2712 then make specific ref......
-
Rose v. United States, 85-111.
...and immoral purposes. See Riley, supra note 2, 298 A.2d at 233; Willis v. United States, 198 A.2d 751 (D.C. 1964); Berneau v. United States, 188 A.2d 301, 302 (D.C. 1963); Alexander v. United States, 187 A.2d 901 (D.C. 1963); Reed v. United States, 93 A.2d 568, 569 (D.C. 1953); Bicksler v. ......