Medlin v. United States, 11484-11486.
| Decision Date | 23 July 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 11484-11486.,11484-11486. |
| Parties | MEDLIN v. UNITED STATES. (two cases). HOUSE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Albert J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. E. Riley Casey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Arthur D. Schaffer and William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., at the time the record was filed, also entered appearances for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
The appellants were indicted and convicted of assault "with a dangerous weapon, that is, shoes" on their feet. There was substantial evidence that each appellant kicked the complaining witness. He was seriously injured.
Appellants contend that shoes on feet are not dangerous weapons. We think it clear that they are, at least when they inflict serious injuries. Cf. Tatum v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 393, 110 F. 2d 555. Appellants' other contentions do not require discussion.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mummey
...weapon" when employed in such a manner as may be reasonably calculated to produce great bodily injury or death); Medlin v. United States (D.C.Cir.1953), 207 F.2d 33, cert. denied, (1954) 347 U.S. 905, 74 S.Ct. 431, 98 L.Ed. 1064 (shoes are dangerous weapons when they inflict serious injury)......
-
United States v. Barber, Crim. A. No. 1926.
...dangerous weapon. Illustrating this principle, courts have held that "shoes on feet" can be a dangerous weapon, Medlin v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 64, 207 F.2d 33 (1953), cert. den. 347 U.S. 905, 74 S.Ct. 431, 98 L.Ed. 1064 (1954), as well as a "wine bottle," Thornton v. United States......
-
U.S. v. Schoenborn, 92-2680
...(plastic and metal chair); Thornton v. United States, 268 F.2d 583 (D.C.Cir.1959) (per curiam) (wine bottle); Medlin v. United States, 207 F.2d 33 (D.C.Cir.1953) (per curiam) (shoes), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 905, 74 S.Ct. 431, 98 L.Ed. 1064 (1954); Hickey v. United States, 168 F. 536 (9th Ci......
-
Perry v. United States
...1953] that ‘shoes on feet’ are dangerous weapons, ‘at least when they inflict serious injuries.’ ” (quoting Medlin v. United States, 93 U.S.App. D.C. 64, 65, 207 F.2d 33, 33 (1953))); Powell, 485 A.2d at 601 (affirming ADW conviction where “[t]he evidence adduced at trial permitted the jury......