Proctor v. United States, 10228.
Decision Date | 17 October 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 10228.,10228. |
Citation | 85 US App. DC 341,177 F.2d 656 |
Parties | PROCTOR v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. William E. Owen, Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court) for appellant.
Mr. Robert M. Scott, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and Joseph M. Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.
This case presents the question whether voluntary drunkenness constitutes a defense to a charge of unauthorized use of a vehicle, under § 2204 of Title 22, District of Columbia Code (1940), which provides, inter alia: "Any person who, without the consent of the owner, shall take, use, operate, or remove, * * * an automobile or motor vehicle, and operate or drive * * * the same * * * for his own profit, use or purpose shall be punished * * *."
No rule is more firmly established than that voluntary drunkenness is no defense for a criminal act, unless specific intent or knowledge is an element of the offense, when drunkenness may be shown to prove mental incapacity to form the specific intent.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Hope Village, Inc.
... ... Civil Action No. 05-633 (RBW) ... United States District Court, District of Columbia ... April 12, 2007 ... ...
-
Lewis v. Reconstruction Finance Corporation
... ... RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION ... United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit ... Argued May 20, ... C., for appellee ... Before EDGERTON and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges, and HIRAM CHURCH FORD, District Judge, sitting by ... ...
-
Salzman v. United States, 21172
...128, 131, 259 F.2d 943, 946 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 959, 79 S.Ct. 800, 3 L.Ed.2d 767 (1959); Proctor v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 341, 177 F.2d 656 (1949); Sabens v. United States, 40 App.D.C. 440, 443 (1913). Compare Parker v. United States, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 346-347, 359 F......
-
McNeil v. U.S.
...of the offense, when drunkenness may be shown to prove mental incapacity to form the specific intent." Proctor v. United States, 85 U.S.App. D.C. 341, 342, 177 F.2d 656, 657 (1949); see also Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 44, 116 S.Ct. 2013, 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996) ("Th[e] stern rejection......