Davis v. United States, 80-946.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-946.,80-946. |
| Citation | 448 A.2d 242 |
| Parties | James Murphy DAVIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Sidney R. Bixler, Washington, D. C., appointed by the court, for appellant.
Gayle D. Hargrove, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Stanley S. Harris, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry, Michael W. Farrell, and A. Carlos Correa, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before KERN, PRYOR and BELSON, Associate Judges.
In this appeal, appellant challenges his conviction after a jury trial of one count of unlawful possession of marijuana, D.C.Code 1973, § 33-402. The sole issue we address is whether the trial court's instruction to the jury permitted the jury to find appellant guilty of possession of marijuana without a unanimous verdict as to which incident constituted unlawful possession1 We find the instruction to be erroneous and accordingly reverse the conviction.
According to the government's evidence, one morning in August 1979 appellant sold one packet of marijuana for $5.00 to a taxicab driver driving along a street in Northwest Washington. Two plainclothes police officers in an unmarked police car, which had pulled up alongside the cab, witnessed this transaction and identified appellant as the seller. One of the plainclothes officers, Detective Gonzales, walked over toward appellant, who had moved approximately 15 feet from the cab, and arrested him. Detective McNamara, the other plainclothes officer, walked over to the cab driver and seized the packet of marijuana that had been thrown into the cab. The police searched appellant and recovered four five dollar bills from his pants pockets. After handcuffing appellant's hands behind his back, the police put him into the back seat of a police vehicle and drove him to police headquarters. Detective McNamara testified that he observed Officer Burton recover another envelope of marijuana from the crack of the rear seat of the police vehicle as appellant was alighting from the car at police headquarters.
Testifying on his own behalf, appellant explained that he saw a man approach a taxicab after the cab driver made a gesture signifying that he wanted to buy a $5.00 packet of marijuana. Appellant explained that he approached the cab to give this person change. Appellant testified that the police searched him twice at that location, and drove him to another location to await a transport vehicle and searched him a third time before driving him to the precinct. He explained that because his hands were handcuffed behind his back as he sat in the police car, he could not have reached into his front or rear pockets.
Appellant contends that the trial court's instructions on unlawful possession of marijuana raised the possibility of a nonunanimous verdict. The jury must return a unanimous verdict pursuant to Super.Ct. Cr.R. 31(a) and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johnson v. United States, D.C.App., 398 A.2d 354, 369 (1979). "Because of the possibility of a nonunanimous verdict, when one charge encompasses two separate incidents, the judge must instruct the jury that if a guilty verdict is returned the jurors must be unanimous as to which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Mangieri
...returned the jurors must be unanimous as to which indictment or incidents they find the defendant guilty." Accord Davis v. United States, 448 A.2d 242 (D.C.1982) (per curiam); Hawkins v. United States, 434 A.2d 446 (D.C.1981). Indeed, we believe the District of Columbia rule is sensible and......
-
Allen v. United States
...813 (1972). Similarly, where the jury may not have been unanimous in its verdict, plain error has been found. Davis v. United States, 448 A.2d 242, 244 (D.C. 1982) (per curiam); Hawkins v. United States, 434 A.2d 446, 449 (D.C. 1981).13 When the instructions concerning the constitutional co......
-
Scarborough v. United States, 84-754.
...v. United States, 434 A.2d 446, 449 (D.C.1981); Hack v. United States, 445 A.2d 634, 641 (D.C. 1982); and Davis v. United States, 448 A.2d 242, 244 (D.C.1982) (per curiam). In Hawkins, for example, we said that the Sixth Amendment requirement for a unanimous verdict4 requires that "[w]here ......
-
Ownes v. United States
...the jurors that they must be unanimous as to which incident they rely upon as a basis for their verdict. E.g., Davis v. United States, 448 A.2d 242, 244 (D.C. 1982); Hack v. United States, 445 A.2d 634, 641 (D.C. 1982); Hawkins v. United States, 434 A.2d 446, 449 (D.C. 1981). If the two inc......