Langford v. United States

Decision Date30 June 1959
Docket NumberNo. 14878.,14878.
Citation106 US App. DC 21,268 F.2d 896
PartiesHoward C. LANGFORD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Austin F. Canfield, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant.

Mr. Walter J. Bonner, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before PRETTYMAN, Chief Judge, and DANAHER and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

DANAHER, Circuit Judge.

Indicted on two counts of robbery, appellant was convicted after a jury trial. Motions for severance, for mistrial and for dismissal of the second count were denied. Concurrent sentences were imposed and this appeal followed, alleging error in the denial of the motions and in various rulings. Appellant also attacked certain language in the charge and the denial of his motion for a new trial.

The first count involved a robbery which occurred about 9:30 A.M. January 30, 1958. A woman storekeeper, working behind her counter, looked up as she heard someone locking the store door. The intruder, wearing a woman's thin stocking intended to conceal his head and face, approached her, took hold of her, pressed a knife against her and demanded that she open the cash register. She did so and then pulled away from him and fled as he abstracted some $70 from the register. Some three weeks later at the police station the victim identified the appellant in a line-up as the person who had pressed the knife against her. Defense counsel's efforts to shake her identification were unavailing. "You see, when somebody scares you so much to death, you remember always the face. You cannot forget it." When appellant later took the stand, he testified he had not robbed the woman. As to the identification he said: "Here's what I want to say. Look. My hair was much longer than it is now. It was five or six inches in height. Whenever you put something tight over your face, wouldn't it pull your hair down? And wouldn't it move your mouth and ears and nose? If she never seen me before, how would she know me with a stocking on my face?"

He also undertook to explain his whereabouts on the morning of January 30, 1958. He testified that although he was a boxer, he was taking care of the house for a Mrs. Evelyn Mills who, suffering from a strain, was unable to do much work. He received $15 per week and room and board. "I would change the baby's diapers and wash the floor and the dishes because she couldn't lift the baby." It had been represented on voir dire that Mrs. Mills would testify in behalf of the appellant. She did not take the witness stand, however. The jury did not believe the appellant.

We will not go into all details as to the second robbery, charged as having occurred sometime after midnight on February 5, 1958. The victim there had been "yoked," as the record has it, almost immediately after he had been ejected from a restaurant where he was said to have caused a commotion following overindulgence in drink. Langford, it was testified, left the restaurant less than a minute later. A special officer hired to protect the premises of private clients, testified that when the victim left the restaurant, there were no people in sight on the street. As he watched for a time, appellant started down the street as did the victim. The victim, wounded about the head and face and covered with blood, reappeared at the door of the restaurant within a minute and a half. The special officer went to the victim's aid, and while supporting him, saw police approaching. Then he looked around and saw the appellant peering in through the restaurant door. He pointed out the appellant to the officers who then had arrived, whereupon Langford took to flight, the witness said.

After the Government had rested and a defense motion to dismiss the second count had been denied, the attorney at a bench conference informed the court: "I am going to tell him I am resting his case...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. King
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1982
    ...what was relevant to each. The joinder was therefore proper ...." Id., 36. See Drew v. United States, supra, 91; Langford v. United States, 268 F.2d 896 (D.C.Cir.1959); Dunaway v. United States, 205 F.2d 23 (D.C.Cir.1953); United States v. Liss, 137 F.2d 995 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 320 U.S......
  • State v. Roberts
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1980
    ...upon a cumulation of the evidence. See Harrington v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284; Langford v. United States (C.A.D.C.1959), 268 F.2d 896; Maurer v. United States (C.A.D.C.1955), 222 F.2d 414. Moreover, defendant has not shown that the proof for an offense ......
  • Robinson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • January 3, 1972
    ...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 896, 897 (1959) (two robbery counts from different transactions); Maurer v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 390, 222 F.2d 414,......
  • Drew v. United States, 17611.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • February 13, 1964
    ...States v. Lotsch, 102 F.2d 35 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 307 U.S. 622, 59 S. Ct. 793, 83 L.Ed. 1500 (1939); Langford v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 21, 268 F.2d 896 (1959); Dunaway v. United States, supra; Maurer v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 222 F.2d 414 (1955); United States v.......
  • 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