Edwards v. United States, 9907.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 9907.,9907. |
| Parties | EDWARDS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Leonard C. Collins, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Robert M. Scott, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., and William S. McKinley and John D. Lane, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON and WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judges, and HOLTZOFF, District Judge, sitting by designation.
This appeal is from a conviction of housebreaking and larceny. There was testimony strongly tending to show that appellant was drunk when the acts were done. The court said in its charge to the jury: "You must find, before you can acquit the defendant Edwards, that the defendant was so intoxicated that she was incapable of forming an intent." We find no other language in the court's charge that seems to us to explain away the quoted statement. We think it erroneous. Incapacity need not be proved or found in order to entitle a defendant to an acquittal. It is true that no proof or finding of capacity is ordinarily necessary to support a conviction. But where a specific intent is essential to the crime charged, and evidence is introduced that might create a reasonable doubt whether the defendant was sober enough to be capable of forming this intent, the jury must be instructed to acquit if they have such a doubt. Davis v. State, 54 Neb. 177, 74 N.W. 599. Cf. Holloway v. United States, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 3, 148 F.2d 665.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Martin, 71-1457.
...104 U.S.App.D.C. 128, 259 F.2d 943 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 959, 79 S.Ct. 800, 3 L.Ed.2d 767 (1959) ; and Edwards v. United States, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 172 F.2d 884 (1949). According to appellant, the trial court committed prejudicial error by shifting the burden of proof to the defe......
-
Kim v. Bd. of Trs. of the Ala. Agric. & Mech. Univ.
...the proffered reason. Standard v. A.B.E.L. Servs. Inc., 161 F.3d 1318, 1331-33 (11th Cir. 1998) reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 172 F.2d 884 (11th Cir. 1999), citing Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519, 1528 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 685, 139 L. Ed. 2d 632 (1998). D......
-
Goodman v. State
...to commit the crime or if there was reasonable doubt that he was capable of forming such intention. In Edwards v. United States, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 172 F.2d 884 (1949), the court said, reversing the trial "This appeal is from a conviction of housebreaking and larceny. There was testimony ......
-
Schwab v. United States
...as to the drinking2 but, as noted, the defense wants a specific instruction. It cites as supporting authority Edwards v. United States, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 172 F.2d 884 (1949) and Allen v. United States, 239 F.2d 172 (6 Cir. There is no merit to this point. The court's comments to the jury......