Quarles v. United States, 6944.

Decision Date01 August 1973
Docket NumberNo. 6944.,6944.
Citation308 A.2d 773
PartiesGary G. QUARLES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.
CourtD.C. Court of Appeals

Marsha E. Swiss, Washington, D. C., appointed by this court, for appellant.

Garey G. Stark, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Harold H. Titus, Jr., U. S. Atty., John A. Terry and James M. Hanny, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before KELLY, NEBEKER and PAIR, Associate Judges.

KELLY, Associate Judge:

Appellant was convicted by a jury of petit larceny,1 as an aider and abettor,2 and claims as the sole error on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We agree and reverse.

Viewed in the best possible light, the government established through prosecution witnesses that one morning about 5:20 a. m., complainant Bennie H. Wall was helping his wife catch a bus to Newark, N. J., at the Greyhound Bus Terminal in this city. Appellant pushed between them in boarding the bus and once on the bus, as Mr. Wall was placing his wife's bag on the overhead rack, appellant bent over as if to pick up something from the floor and forcibly pushed back against him. At the same moment an unknown gentleman pushed against him from the rear. Mr. Wall immediately felt for his wallet and found that it was gone. The gentleman behind Mr. Wall hurriedly left the bus, but appellant was asked to remain. Appellant explained to a special police officer who was called that he boarded the bus to ask about bus schedules to Cincinnati, but he was otherwise uncooperative. No wallet was found either on the bus or in appellant's possession; however, at the precinct a bus ticket to Baltimore was found on his person. A metropolitan police officer, qualified as an expert, testified that pickpockets like to work in teams, in closed areas, much in the manner of this occurrence. Appellant offered no testimony.

Proof of an accused's presence at the scene of a crime alone cannot support a conviction of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime. "An inference of criminal participation cannot be drawn merely from presence; a culpable purpose is essential." Bailey v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 98, 416 F.2d 1110, 1113 (1969) [Footnotes omitted.]. Proof of presence plus conduct which designedly encourages or facilitates a crime, however suffices to support an inference of guilty participation in the crime. Id. The question then is whether the government here made the requisite showing that appellant in some way associated himself with this criminal venture, that he participated in it as in something he wished to bring about, and that he sought by his action to make it succeed. Nye & Nissen v. United States, 335 U.S. 613, 69 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed. 919 (1949); United States v. Lumpkin, 145 U. S.App.D.C. 162, 448 F.2d 1085 (1971); Bailey v. United States, supra; Davis v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 172, 409 F.2d 458, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 949, 89 S. Ct. 2031, 23 L.Ed.2d 469 (1969).

It is of course the rule that in deciding the issue of guilt or innocence a jury may draw reasonable inferences and deductions from the evidence presented, if substantial. In applying that rule to the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Irick v. U.S.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • October 5, 1989
    ...him and the others. Absence of evidence linking the accused to Jerry Daniels cannot be surmounted by hypotheses. Quarles v. United States, 308 A.2d 773, 775 (D.C. 1973). Further, I can find no support for the proposition that expert testimony describing the modus operandi of potential crime......
  • Durant v. U.S.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1988
    ...States, 478 A.2d 644, 652 (D.C. 1984) (trial judge has broad discretion to control the scope of cross-examination); Quarles v. United States, 308 A.2d 773, 775 (D.C. 1973) (jury may draw reasonable inferences from the 11. Although Durant's dual diagnosis of PCP intoxication and histrionic p......
  • Glass v. United States
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • November 16, 1978
    ...clearly warranted. See and compare Creek v. United States, supra; In re T.J.W., D.C.App., 294 A.2d 174 (1972), with Quarles v. United States, D.C. App., 308 A.2d 773 (1973); (John) Bailey v. United States, Appellant Davis drove the car to and away from the tourist home. Both Danny and Brend......
  • Matter of J.W.Y.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • September 9, 1976
    ...the commission of the unlawful coitus, a result in conflict with established law. See Creek v. United States, supra; Quarles v. United States, D.C.App., 308 A.2d 773 (1973).6 It does not follow, however, that the court's subsequent exclusion of certain evidence concerning the complainant's ......
  • 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