Gray v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 19461.,19461. |
| Citation | 356 F.2d 792,123 US App. DC 39 |
| Parties | Jerry D. GRAY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. John Robert Ewers, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.
Mr. John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee. Mr. John C. Conliff, Jr., U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, Messrs. Frank Q. Nebeker, Harold H. Titus, Jr., and Henry J. Monahan, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before BASTIAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and BURGER and TAMM, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was convicted on two counts of robbery and received concurrent sentences.
On this appeal, appellant's counsel urges that appellant was prejudiced by being tried on both counts at the same time, and cites FED.R.CRIM.P. 14.1 We think it clear that the joinder was permissible under FED.R.CRIM.P. 8(a).2
Appellant relies heavily on Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 331 F.2d 85 (1964). In that case, however, timely protest was made in the trial court "before, during and after the trial." In the instant case, no protest was ever made. Despite this fact, we have carefully searched the record to determine whether there was plain error affecting substantial rights. FED.R.CRIM.P. 52(b).
In our opinion, there is no basis, in this record, for holding that the joinder and trial of these two counts in fact resulted in prejudice to appellant. The two offenses occurred on different nights within one month of each other, in the same apartment building; and the modus operandi was the same in each case, although two different women were involved. Appellant situated himself, in each instance, in the blind corner of the passenger elevator (the doors of which opened only three-quarters of the way) and, as it moved, he assaulted and robbed each of the two women. Appellant was identified by each of the victims, the distinction between the two offenses was made evident by the testimony, and the trial judge was careful to review separately the evidence as to each of the two offenses. (Daly v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 353, 342 F.2d 932 (1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 853, 86 S.Ct. 102, 15 L.Ed.2d 91, Oct. 11, 1965.)
1 Relief from Prejudicial Joinder: "If it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. United States
...21 L.Ed.2d 221 (1969); Baker v. United States, 131 U.S.App. D.C. 7, 20-23, 401 F.2d 958, 971-974 (1968); Gray v. United States, 123 U.S. App.D.C. 39, 40, 356 F.2d 792, 793 (1966); Daly v. United States, 119 U.S. App.D.C. 353, 354, 342 F.2d 932, 933 (1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 853, 86 S.C......
-
Robinson v. United States
...F.2d at 975 (four counts, charging income tax offenses, pertaining to different transactions or tax years); Gray v. United States, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 39, 40, 356 F.2d 792, 793 (1966) (two robbery counts from different transactions); Langford v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 21, 22, 268 F.2d......
-
State v. Gann
...680 (8th Cir. 1966), where defendant was charged with violations of the Mann Act involving different females; Gray v. United States, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 39, 356 F.2d 792 (C.A.1966), joinder allowed based on two offenses occurring on different nights within one month of each other in the same a......
-
State v. Carter, 59831
...on joinder are implicitly recognized in Daly v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 353, 342 F.2d 932 (1965) and Gray v. United States, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 39, 356 F.2d 792 (1966). Specifically, he argues that the courts there approved of joinder only because the offenses were of a similar or recu......