Bowman v. United States
| Citation | 212 A.2d 610 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 3678.,3678. |
| Parties | William H. BOWMAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
William J. Garber, Washington, D. C., with whom William A. Bachrach, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant,
Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Earl J. Silbert and Gerald E. Gilbert, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
Appellant and one Ferguson, not a party to this appeal, were convicted of unlawful entry.1 Neither defendant testified at trial, and it is appellant's contention that the Government's evidence did not warrant his conviction.
The evidence of the Government showed that one afternoon a crowd of about 100 persons was gathered in the concourse of Union Station outside the gate leading to Track 24. Above the gate was a sign stating that only persons holding transportation (having tickets) were permitted through the gate, and prior to the opening of the gate public announcement to the same effect was made. Appellant and Ferguson were seen standing at the rear of the crowd, but when the gate was opened they were among the first to enter. They made no attempt to go to the train level, but stationed themselves at the top of the escalator leading to the train level and remained there while others passed them and went down the escalator. While so standing, appellant saw a Terminal Company police officer, Lt. Harding, observing him. He went to Harding and inquired if Officer Lanigan was around, saying he wished to obtain Lanigan's permission to take some pictures of this area. Harding noticed that neither appellant nor his companion Ferguson had any photographic equipment, and asked appellant for his ticket. When appellant could produce no ticket, Harding arrested him. After being arrested, appellant stated he and Ferguson had been looking for the Redskin Special, although that train had departed some seventeen minutes before and on a different track.
While Harding was talking with appellant, Ferguson undertook to leave, and began to run when he saw Officer Hoggarty following him. Hoggarty caught Ferguson as he left the Station. Ferguson also had no ticket.
On this appeal, appellant concedes he had no ticket and had no intention of buying one. He also concedes the authority of the Terminal Company to exclude the public generally from certain areas of the Station and to restrict use of such areas to those members of the public who are there to board a train. He further concedes that had Harding ordered him to leave the restricted area his refusal to do so would have been a violation of the statute. But appellant argues that his entry into the restricted area was not a violation of the statute. His position appears to be that there can be no unlawful entry under the statute unless such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wesby v. Dist. of Columbia
...“one who enters for a good purpose and with a bona fide belief of his right to enter is not guilty of unlawful entry”); Bowman v. U.S., 212 A.2d 610, 611–12 (D.C.1965) (“[O]ne who enters ... for a good purpose and with bona fide belief of his right to enter ... would not be guilty of an unl......
-
Wesby v. Dist. of Columbia
...the will of the lawful occupant the entry must be against the expressed will, that is, after warning to keep off.” Bowman v. United States, 212 A.2d 610, 611 (D.C.1965); see also Darab v. United States, 623 A.2d 127, 136 (D.C.1993) (“When a person enters a place with a good purpose and a bo......
-
FEDEROV v. U.S.
...States, 232 A.2d 92 (D.C. 1967) (per curiam) (narcotics users entered abandoned "vacant and condemned" building); Bowman v. United States, 212 A.2d 610 (D.C. 1965) (defendants entered area of Union Station restricted to ticket-holders proposing to board train). Obviously, the violations ill......
-
Bond v. United States
...which could be explained only if appellant was the thief.21 The convictions for unlawful entry must also stand. In Bowman v. United States, D.C.App., 212 A.2d 610 (1965), we sustained a conviction for unlawful entry of a posted non-public area in Union Station, stating that any person who w......
-
CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND COMPUTER CRIME.
...notice that presence was unauthorized); see also, e.g., Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 147 (1943); Bowman v. United States, 212 A.2d 610, 611 (D.C. 1965); WAYNE LAFAVE, SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW [section] 21.2(a) (3d ed. 2019). (23.) Mistake of law is not always a defense, of cou......