McRae v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 4116.,4116. |
| Citation | 222 A.2d 848 |
| Parties | John W. McRAE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Karl G. Feissner, Washington, D. C., (appointed by this court), for appellant.
Scott R. Schoenfeld, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom David G. Bress, U.S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Arthur L. Burnett, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges, and CAYTON (Chief Judge, Retired).
On this appeal from a conviction of petit larceny (D.C.Code, § 22-2202) appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. He urges that for failure to prove a prima facie case he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government's case; also that the trial court erred in allowing defense evidence to bolster or complete "an otherwise imperfect case."
A detective testified that in a local department store he saw appellant take a pair of maternity slacks from a rack and conceal it under the left side of a jacket he was wearing; that appellant, joined by a lady who had been in a nearby fitting room, went by escalator to the floor below and there, noticing that he was being followed, attempted to pull the garment from under his jacket and place it among some articles of boys' clothing. The detective admitted that appellant had ample money with him to pay for the slacks, and had not left the store when arrested.
It has consistently been held that a defendant who introduces testimony after denial of his motion for acquittal at the close of the prosecution's case, thereby waives such motion and cannot make the ruling the subject of review on appeal. Hall v. United States, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 166, 168 F.2d 161, 164, 4 A.L.R.2d 1193, cert. denied, 334 U.S. 853, 68 S.Ct. 1509, 92 L.Ed. 1775; Ladrey v. United States, 81 U.S. App.D.C. 127, 155 F.2d 417, cert. denied, 329 U.S. 723, 67 S.Ct. 68, 91 L.Ed. 627; Jenkins v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 146 A.2d 444; Wilson v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 214.
Nevertheless, we have considered the merits of the appeal. We rule that the recited evidence establishd a prima facie case and did not fail for want of proof of asportation or of criminal intent. Under our ruling in Groomes v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 155 A.2d 73, the trial judge was fully warranted in holding that the elements of taking and asportation were established, along with the intention to steal. The fact that the concealment was brief and appellant was apprehended before he left the store did not absolve him.
The young lady who was with appellant at the time of arrest testified she had been trying on garments in the maternity department (she being pregnant), that appellant had not taken the maternity slacks, and that when he was arrested on the floor below in the little boys' department it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lattimore v. US
...only a brief amount of time or that the person was apprehended before removing the goods from the owner's premises. McRae v. United States, 222 A.2d 848, 849 (D.C.1966); Groomes v. United States, 155 A.2d 73, 75 (D.C.1959); see Baldwin v. United States, 521 A.2d 650, 650-51 (D.C.1987); Sing......
-
Franey v. United States, 11038.
...United States, D.C.App., 233 A.2d 514, 516 (1967); Dickson v. United States, D.C.App., 226 A.2d 364, 365-66 (1967); McRae v. United States, D.C.App., 222 A.2d 848, 849 (1966).3 Although conflicting views exist regarding the validity of the waiver doctrine,4 we find that it has been sanction......
-
Lee v. State, 692
...before the goods could be removed from the owner's premises is immaterial. (Citations omitted). To the same effect see McRae v. United States, 222 A.2d 848 (D.C.App.1966) (evidence sufficient to convict of larceny when defendant concealed pair of slacks under In a case almost identical to t......
-
In re J. N. H., 6186.
...v. United States, D.C.App., 276 A.2d 237, 238 (1971); Wesley v. United States, D.C. App., 233 A.2d 514 (1967); McRae v. United States, D.C.App., 222 A.2d 848, 849 (1966); Wilson v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 214 (1949). It has been held, however, that the rule is not contro......