In re Jackson, 8179.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 8179.,8179. |
| Citation | 328 A.2d 377 |
| Parties | In re Reginald A. JACKSON, Appellant. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Ronna Lee Beck, Washington, D. C., appointed by this court, for appellant.
Steven R. Schaars, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Earl J. Silbert, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry, James F. McMullin, David T. Stitt, Donald L. Abrams, John W. Polk and Raymond J. Coughlan, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before FICKLING, GALLAGHER and YEAGLEY, Associate Judges.
Appellant was found guilty by the trial court of criminal contempt1 for violation of the court's lineup order directing "that the defendant not alter his facial or bodily appearance prior to the time of the line-up. . . ." At the time of the lineup order, appellant had a "full bush, sideburns extending to just below the end lobe of the ears, a moustache protruding into a goatee around the line of the mouth, crossing the chin, clean-shaven on the cheeks and beneath the chin. . . ." When appellant appeared at his preliminary hearing it was noted that his head and beard were completely shaved. Appellant had recently appeared in a previous lineup and had been there identified as a perpetrator of the crime there under investigation.
At a hearing to show cause why he should not be held in contempt appellant testified, in essence, that while getting a trim at a barber shop, the barber told him he thought he had ringworms and that his "hair was threatened" and it was necessary to remove the hair, and this was done. The next day, appellant went to a doctor for treatment and the doctor gave him a prescription for a dermatological infection. He asked the doctor "to give me a statement that I had been there, to be, you know, noted, so to speak."
The trial court found that appellant had materially changed his appearance and that this frustrated the lineup and was a wilful violation of the court's order which he had received. The court found further that appellant "was knowledgeable".2 In so finding the court noted that there was no medical testimony that shaving the hair was a required treatment.
Appellant contends that the evidence shows appellant lacked the required criminal intent when he had his hair and beard removed,3 and that he was, at most, negligent.
The fact of the matter is that the trial court expressly found a wilful violation of the court order and we see no sound basis to overturn this finding. Appellant well knew he had been ordered not to change his appearance and this is precisely what he did, with no attempt to first secure court permission; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Carter, 11566.
...162 (1924). While this standard provides a general guideline, an opinion of this court is more specifically relevant. In re Jackson, D.C.App., 328 A.2d 377 (1974), concerned a defendant who had shaved his head and face, allegedly because of a ringworm condition. Jackson was convicted of con......
-
Bell v. US, 99-CM-1296.
...2064. The government argues that appellant's failure to pay the fine was willful, suggesting that this case is more like In re Jackson, 328 A.2d 377 (D.C.1974). In Jackson this court upheld a finding that the action of a defendant who materially changed his appearance, contrary to a court o......