Thompson v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 21601.,21601. |
| Citation | 405 F.2d 1106,132 US App. DC 38 |
| Parties | Michael THOMPSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Jason L. Shrinsky, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant. Mr. Arthur Stambler, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) was on the brief for appellant.
Mr. Julius A. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before BURGER, LEVENTHAL and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant challenges his conviction for assault and robbery. 22 D.C.CODE § 2901. His co-defendant, one Green, was tried separately and his conviction was affirmed by this Court in Green v. United States, No. 21,376 (D.C.Cir., May 7, 1968). The evidence at trial was that two policemen observed Appellant and Green "walking more rapidly than normal" toward an alley which would intersect the path of a woman they had seen leaving a store carrying an armful of groceries and a purse. This aroused the curiosity if not the suspicion of the officers. Shortly after the officers lost sight of the men, one of them, Green, attacked the woman from behind and snatched her purse. Her testimony was that as she turned she saw Appellant "a couple of steps" from her. She screamed for the police and pursued both men as they fled. The police, having resumed their momentarily interrupted surveillance of the two men, heard the victim's cries for help, came upon the scene and observed Green and Thompson running, Green carrying the stolen purse. The officers fired a warning shot when Appellant and Green failed to stop on command; Appellant then halted; Green, with the incriminating purse in hand, continued flight but was quickly apprehended.
Appellant urges that a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted at the close of the Government's case, that there was error in the trial court's charge, and that it was error to refuse a "circumstantial evidence charge" along the lines set forth in Carter v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 227, 252 F.2d 608 (1957).
The claim for a directed verdict of acquittal must here be premised on the proposition that at the close of the Government's case there was nothing linking Appellant with the crime which would permit a reasonable jury to find Appellant guilty. E. g., Curley v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 160 F.2d 229, cert. denied, 331 U.S. 837, 67 S.Ct. 1511, 91 L.Ed. 1850 (1947). This argument ignores the record evidence. The observations of the officers, the fact of the actual attack and theft, followed by the Appellant's flight with the actual perpetrator of the theft, afforded ample basis for the jury to draw the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coleman
...States, 426 F.2d 651, 656 (D.C.Cir.1970), cert. dismissed, 401 U.S. 846, 91 S.Ct. 1258, 28 L.Ed.2d 523 (1971); Thompson v. United States, 405 F.2d 1106, 1107-1108 (D.C.Cir.1968). The jury's determination that a defendant's conduct evinces a consciousness of guilt is not the same, however, a......
-
Foster v. State
... ... See also Annot., 71 A.L.R.2d 449 (1960) ... In 1967 the United States Supreme Court in a trilogy of opinions in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct ... ...
-
Perryman v. State
... ... and was apprehended minutes later; he was then placed in a police car with Police Officer Thompson and driven to a car wash location on Zarzamora Street where he was identified by Flores as one of ... See Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed.2d 268; Johnson v. Zerbst, supra; Narro ... ...
-
State v. York
... ... Preston v. United States, 1964, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777; Chimel v. California, 1969, 395 U.S. 752, ... ...