United States v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 06 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 9014.,9014. |
| Citation | 324 F.2d 264 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Edward JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Edwin H. Pierce, Jr., Alexandria, Va. (Court-assigned counsel), for appellant.
Plato Cacheris, Asst. U. S. Atty. (C. V. Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, BRYAN, Circuit Judge, and THOMSEN, District Judge.
The defendant appeals from his conviction by the District Judge sitting without a jury in the Eastern District of Virginia for an assault with a dangerous weapon, 18 U.S.C.A. § 113(c). He was charged with using a metal and plastic chair which the indictment alleged, and the District Court found, to be a dangerous weapon. The defendant admits that the Government has proven a case of assault but denies using a chair, claiming that he only used his fists.
At the time of the offense the defendant was an inmate of the Youth Center, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, Lorton, Virginia. Cassidy, a guard at the Center, was the assault victim. Since he was absent from the trial due to an unrelated illness, the parties entered into a stipulation as to what he would have testified to if present. According to the stipulation, Cassidy had ordered the defendant to clean the day room (recreation room) but the defendant ignored the order and returned to his room. Later in the day, Cassidy heard a noise outside of his office and, upon investigating, found the defendant standing outside his door with a chair raised over his head. This the defendant brought down on the guard, striking him in the region of the left eye and causing a laceration. Cassidy called for help over the intercom system and two other guards came to his assistance. The three subdued the defendant.
At trial, the two other guards corroborated Cassidy's testimony to the extent that they did answer his call for help, saw the defendant with a chair in his hands, saw Cassidy bleeding, and aided in bringing the defendant under control. Both admitted, however, that they did not actually see the defendant strike Cassidy with the chair. The prison doctor testified that he treated Cassidy for the head wound which proved to be not serious. The laceration was cleansed and dressed and Cassidy was instructed to return for further dressings. No stitches were required and Cassidy lost no time from work.*
The defendant's version, on the other hand, was that he returned to Cassidy's office to try to persuade him not to write a disciplinary report for his refusal to clean the day room. The defendant admitted that, having failed to persuade the guard, he struck him with his fists, but denied using the chair.
It is not the function of this court to weigh conflicting testimony. The present posture of the case requires us to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, United States v. Lowery, 306 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1961), and if there is substantial evidence supporting the lower court's conclusion, it will not be disturbed. Harris v. United States, 283 F.2d 923 (4th Cir. 1960). Such evidence was present in the testimony of Cassidy, corroborated by the two other guards and the prison doctor.
The main legal contention is that a chair is not a dangerous weapon. While it may not be a dangerous weapon per se, 4 Am.Jur. Assault and Battery § 34, p. 145, almost any object "which as used or attempted to be used may endanger life or inflict great...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Leever
...an object capable of doing serious damage to the victim...." (United States v. Bey (5th Cir.1982) 667 F.2d 7, 11; United States v. Johnson (4th Cir.1963) 324 F.2d 264, 266, and cases The California statute, section 245, requires, in subdivision (a)(1) (formerly subd. (a)), as it did at the ......
-
United States v. Narciso
...with the manner of its use, which is determinative of whether an object can be characterized as a dangerous weapon. U. S. v. Johnson, 324 F.2d 264 (4th Cir. 1963). Under such an expansive concept it is manifestly conceivable that a syringe or hypodermic needle could be used against the pers......
-
United States v. Tate
...aggressor attacked or threatened someone with it. See United States v. Loman , 551 F.2d 164, 169 (7th Cir. 1977) ; United States v. Johnson , 324 F.2d 264, 266 (4th Cir. 1963). When the Commission first used the phrase, therefore, ordinary items regularly qualified as "dangerous weapons" if......
-
U.S.A v. Rocha, 08-50175.
... 598 F.3d 1144 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor ROCHA, also known as Vap1 Mono, also known as ... United ... States, 365 F.2d 616 (10th Cir.1966) (iron ... pipe); United States v. Johnson, 324 F.2d ... 264 (4th Cir.1963) (metal and plastic chair); ... see also Hickey v. United ... ...
-
The Racialized Violence of Police Canine Force
...See Stoughton, supra note 306, at 559–61. 387. United States v. Moore, 846 F.2d 1163, 1167 (8th Cir. 1988). 388. United States v. Johnson, 324 F.2d 264, 266 (4th Cir. 1963) (quoting United States v. Anderson, 190 F. Supp. 589, 591 (D. Md. 1960)); see id. (collecting cases). 2023] THE RACIAL......