Harris v. United States
| Decision Date | 23 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 16688.,16688. |
| Citation | 112 US App. DC 100,299 F.2d 931 |
| Parties | Cordell F. HARRIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Charles A. Hobbs (appointed by this court), Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Judah Best, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was indicted for robbery and convicted of assault with the intent to rob. He appeals.
About 2:00 A.M. on November 5, 1960, a police officer discovered appellant on the ground atop the complaining witness, whom he was beating and whose pants pockets he was ripping and tearing open.1 Standing alongside and watching the affray was one Pearsall, a seventeenyear old juvenile. The complaining witness' face was bloody, and there were other evidences of assault. Upon being arrested, appellant explained his actions as those of peacemaker; according to him, he was merely attempting to break up a fight between the complaining witness and Pearsall. Appellant expressly denied any intention of robbing the man whose pockets he was so handily tearing apart.
At the trial, the testimony of the complaining witness was entirely different from appellant's version of the affair. He testified that he had been attacked by two men, one of whom struck him on the back of the head and knocked him to the ground, and that he was then beaten and robbed. He identified appellant as one of his assailants although, of course, he could not say that it was appellant who delivered the initial blow from the rear that grounded him.
The police officer who arrested appellant was called to the stand by the Government and, during the course of his direct examination, the following testimony was adduced.
After this statement by Pearsall in appellant's presence, appellant stated, according to further testimony of the police officer, that "he Harris didn't want to go to jail." There was no objection to this testimony in the trial court. Appellant now claims for the first time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States ex rel. Brown Minneapolis Tank Co. v. Kinley Constr. Co.
-
Watts v. United States
...United States, D.C.App., 245 A.2d 839, 842 (1968); see Adams v. United States, D.C.App., 302 A.2d 232 (1973); Harris v. United States, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 299 F.2d 931 (1962); D. C.Code 1973, § 4. In Billeci v. United States, supra, the United States Court of Appeals sanctioned an instruc......
-
Smith v. United States, 6234.
...(B) & (C), and (2) (A) (Supp. V, 1972). 11. Bunter v. United States, D.C.App., 245 A.2d 839 (1968). See also Harris v. United States, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 299 F.2d 931 (1962); Kelly v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 102 A.2d 308 (1954). 12. See Roe v. United States, 316 F.2d 617 (5th ......
-
United States v. Harris
...122 U.S.App.D. C. 5, 350 F.2d 788 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 992, 86 S.Ct. 1899, 16 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1966); Harris v. United States, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 299 F.2d 931 (1962); Newsom v. United States, 335 F.2d 237 (5th Cir. We reach a similar conclusion on appellant's final contention that......