Burcham v. United States, 9506.

Decision Date04 August 1947
Docket NumberNo. 9506.,9506.
Citation163 F.2d 761,82 US App. DC 283
PartiesBURCHAM v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Robert I. Miller, of Washington, D. C., for appellant. Mr. Kenneth D. Wood, of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.

Mr. John P. Burke, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Sidney S. Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, and John D. Lane, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellee.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and WILBUR K. MILLER, Associate Justices.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Associate Justice.

James A. Burcham, the appellant, was convicted in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia of assault with a dangerous weapon. He appeals on three grounds: (a) that the court erroneously admitted evidence of an offense other than that for which the appellant was being tried; (b) that the court should have instructed on simple assault, an offense included in that of which he was accused; and (c) that the court erred in telling the jury that a recommendation of mercy is not binding on the court.

Burcham boarded a westbound Pennsylvania Avenue street car about 1:20 a.m. on June 7, 1946. There was testimony that he was under the influence of alcohol. He undertook to establish and enforce racial segregation on the car by requiring colored passengers to move to the rear. The complaining witness entered the street car at 3d Street and was told by Burcham to move back. The witness observed an altercation then going on between the appellant and an unidentified passenger, in the course of which both combatants suffered knife wounds. As the car crossed 7th Street the trouble was still in progress, and somewhere between there and 10th Street the complaining witness was cut by Burcham. At 10th Street the appellant alighted and soon after was taken into custody at 11th Street by police officers who found a bloodstained knife in his possession.

The evidence that Burcham cut an unidentified man soon after the car left 3d Street is said by the appellant to concern an offense different from the one for which he was being tried, since the complaining witness was cut by him as the car neared 10th Street. Burcham's conduct on the street car that early morning cannot be broken down by him for evidentiary purposes to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Gariepy v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • March 9, 1955
    ...leniency. The judge was scrupulously careful and accurate in answering the jury's inquiry as he did. Compare Burchman v. United States, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 283, 163 F.2d 761, 762; United States v. Parker, 3 Cir., 103 F.2d 857, Appellant urgently insists that the trial judge committed reversible......
  • Catrino v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 19, 1949
    ...necessarily included therein if the attempt is an offense." Small v. United States, 9 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 144; Burcham v. United States, 1947, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 283, 163 F.2d 761. 7 United States v. Russell, supra, 255 U.S. 138, at page 143, 41 S.Ct. 260, 65 L.Ed. 553; Martin v. United State......
  • Parker v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • April 12, 1966
    ...U.S.App.D.C. 206, 328 F.2d 178 (1963); MacIllrath v. United States, 88 U.S.App. D.C. 270, 188 F.2d 1009 (1951); Burcham v. United States, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 283, 163 F.2d 761 (1947). In the course of a lengthy charge to the jury, the court at one point summarized certain of the testimony by st......
  • McQuaid v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • November 20, 1951
    ...1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 148, 180 F.2d 397, certiorari denied, 1950, 339 U.S. 987, 70 S.Ct. 1009, 94 L.Ed. 1389; Burcham v. United States, 1947, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 283, 163 F.2d 761. See, also, McAffee v. United States, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 142, 105 F.2d 4 Botnick v. Commonwealth, 1936, 266 Ky. 419,......
  • 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