Guy v. United States, No. 7290.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtEDGERTON, Associate Justice
Citation107 F.2d 288,71 App. DC 89
PartiesGUY v. UNITED STATES.
Docket NumberNo. 7290.
Decision Date09 October 1939

71 App. DC 89, 107 F.2d 288 (1939)

GUY
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 7290.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Decided October 9, 1939.

Writ of Certiorari Denied December 11, 1939.


Charles E. Ford, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

107 F.2d 289

David A. Pine, U. S. Atty., and John W. Fihelly, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Submitted to GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and EDGERTON, Associate Justices.

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from a conviction of second-degree murder. Edna Reddick died on June 5, 1938, of a traumatic cerebral hemorrhage with ensuing exhaustion. There were marks of violence on various parts of her body. She received the fatal injuries in her home, 220 Canal Street S. W., about 7 o'clock in the morning of May 26. Appellant, Frank Guy, was there; he admitted this on the stand, and he did not contend that any third person was present. He testified that he "kept company" with the deceased, had a key to her house, and usually ate breakfast there.

The government's witnesses gave the following testimony: Leila Brown lived at 222 Canal Street, next door to Edna, and knew her and Guy. About 7 o'clock in the morning of May 26 she saw Guy enter Edna's house and go upstairs. She heard him hitting Edna and heard Edna screaming, in the front room. She heard her scream "Lord have mercy, stop beating me, Frank." She heard them go to the back room, and then heard Edna scream "Stop killing me, stop fighting me." Witness went out on a shed behind her house, saw Guy "licking down on" Edna with something — not his hand, and not a stick — and heard the blows. She could not see Edna, but got a good look at Guy, and heard his voice. Edna was still screaming. The beating lasted "a good while." When Edna stopped screaming, Guy came out of Edna's house and told witness to come in. She went in. She saw a broken chair, and then knew what she had seen Guy hitting Edna with. She saw Edna on a bed, and spoke to her but got no reply. She asked Guy to let her call someone, and he replied, "No, let her stay here; you come out of here and stay out until I come back." The bed in the front room where the fight started was broken down. Guy left the premises, returned, and removed a broken bed; later that day he brought it back, and the broken part had been repaired.

Leila Brown's daughter, Maggie Halton, heard fighting in the back room of Edna's house, and heard the voices of Edna and Guy. She heard Edna crying "Frank, don't hit me no more," and heard Guy say "Shut up" a good many times. She heard him hit her so many "licks" she could not tell how many; "somebody smacking somebody or hitting somebody." Guy called her mother, and her mother entered Edna's home with him.

Elizabeth Thomas lived at 216 Canal Street. She knew Edna, and had known Guy intimately for two years. She knew the voices of both. While she was in her own house she heard Edna yelling "Murder," and heard her say "Frank, you have the money now, what are you beating me for?" She heard Frank say "Shut up." She got on a fence behind her house and "still heard hollering and heard three licks." Edna said, "Well, kill me, I have nothing to live for." The licks "didn't sound like no hand licks. It was like a board * * * hit on a person." She saw Guy in the window.

Lucy Simpson lived at 224 Canal Street. She had known Guy for three or four years, and Edna for one year. Witness, in her own kitchen, heard screaming. She went into her back yard and identified Edna's voice. She heard several hard licks, and more screaming. She heard Edna say, "Frank don't, stop fighting me, don't beat me."

Edna's daughter, Aleitha Chew, entered the house about 9 o'clock. The bed and chair were broken. Edna was lying on a mattress. She had bruises on the right side of her eye. Guy told witness repeatedly to call no doctor. He also told her he would beat her up if she reported it. About noon, Edna asked Guy why he had beaten her, and he answered that he had beaten her because she was drunk and did not fix him any breakfast. Edna asked Guy for her money, and he said he had it and would bring it later. He took the bed out, and returned with it. About noon, and again in the evening, witness asked Guy to get a doctor, and he refused. Edna said something to him about beating her, and he said he did not beat her with his fists, he took the back of a chair. Witness picked up about a handful of Edna's hair, scattered on the steps and on the bed. Witness said to Guy that he must have pulled her mother down the steps by the hair, and he said, "No, she had a fever." Her mother said to Guy that she did not think she fell, she thought he knocked her down the steps. Guy told witness not to tell Dr. Bowie that he had

107 F.2d 290
beaten her mother. She heard her mother tell Dr. Brown that she fell down the steps

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., No. 192.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 2 d4 Maio d4 1946
    ...v. United States, 4 Cir., 264 F. 268, 275; Hobart v. United States, 6 Cir., 299 F. 784, 785; Guy v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 89, 107 F.2d 288, 290; cf. Pasqua v. United States, 5 Cir., 146 F.2d 522, 523, 524; Rice v. United States, 10 Cir., 149 F.2d 601, 604. Other such cases will be cite......
  • Merrick v. American Security & Trust Co., No. 7165.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 9 d1 Outubro d1 1939
    ...when read as a whole it necessarily implies that professional knowledge and skill will be exercised by the appellee in advising customers 107 F.2d 288 concerning their estate matters, and this notwithstanding some contrary statements and implications in other portions of the --------Notes: ......
  • Butler v. United States, No. 8338.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 30 d2 Novembro d2 1943
    ...not affect the substantial rights of the accused does not call for the reversal of a conviction, Guy v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 89, 107 F.2d 288. We regard the admission of the statement as immaterial because Butler voluntarily testified before the grand jury and before the trial judge. ......
  • Vaughn v. State, No. 876S236
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 4 d5 Agosto d5 1978
    ...if there is only one offense and the crimes charged are of the same character. See, e. g., Guy v. United States (1940), 71 App.D.C. 89, 107 F.2d 288, Cert. denied (1939), 308 U.S. 618, 60 S.Ct. 296, 84 L.Ed. 516; United States v. Ridens (E.D.Pa.1973), 362 F.Supp. 358; United States v. Mambe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., No. 192.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 2 d4 Maio d4 1946
    ...v. United States, 4 Cir., 264 F. 268, 275; Hobart v. United States, 6 Cir., 299 F. 784, 785; Guy v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 89, 107 F.2d 288, 290; cf. Pasqua v. United States, 5 Cir., 146 F.2d 522, 523, 524; Rice v. United States, 10 Cir., 149 F.2d 601, 604. Other such cases will be cite......
  • Merrick v. American Security & Trust Co., No. 7165.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 9 d1 Outubro d1 1939
    ...when read as a whole it necessarily implies that professional knowledge and skill will be exercised by the appellee in advising customers 107 F.2d 288 concerning their estate matters, and this notwithstanding some contrary statements and implications in other portions of the --------Notes: ......
  • Butler v. United States, No. 8338.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 30 d2 Novembro d2 1943
    ...not affect the substantial rights of the accused does not call for the reversal of a conviction, Guy v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 89, 107 F.2d 288. We regard the admission of the statement as immaterial because Butler voluntarily testified before the grand jury and before the trial judge. ......
  • Vaughn v. State, No. 876S236
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 4 d5 Agosto d5 1978
    ...if there is only one offense and the crimes charged are of the same character. See, e. g., Guy v. United States (1940), 71 App.D.C. 89, 107 F.2d 288, Cert. denied (1939), 308 U.S. 618, 60 S.Ct. 296, 84 L.Ed. 516; United States v. Ridens (E.D.Pa.1973), 362 F.Supp. 358; United States v. Mambe......
  • 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