Williams v. United States
| Citation | 57 App. DC 253,20 F.2d 269 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 4486.,4486. |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
R. A. Hughes, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Peyton Gordon and Raymond Neudecker, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
Appellant, defendant below, appeals from a conviction in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia of the crime of manslaughter, under an indictment charging her with murder in the second degree.
It appears that on December 1, 1925, appellant, in a quarrel with her husband, Fred Williams, struck him with a lighted lamp, inflicting burns from which he died on December 7th following. The assault is admitted by the defendant, but the evidence tends to establish that, when deceased was struck by the lamp, it broke and fell to the floor, where the oil ignited, setting fire to a rug. A scuffle ensued on the floor between the defendant and the deceased, where the clothes of the deceased caught fire, resulting in the burns which caused his death.
The indictment charges the defendant with "casting, throwing at, against, and upon him, the said Fred Williams, of the said lighted lamp as aforesaid, in and upon the body of him, the said Fred Williams, in the manner and form aforesaid, did thereby then and there feloniously, willfully, and of her malice aforethought, give to the said Fred Williams divers certain mortal burns and wounds, of which said mortal burns and wounds the said Fred Williams" died.
It is contended by counsel for defendant that the evidence discloses that death was caused, not from being struck by the lamp, but as the result of the clothes of the deceased becoming ignited during the struggle on the floor. This, however, overlooks the elementary principle of criminal law that, where a person intentionally sets a dangerous agency in operation, he is responsible for the consequences resulting from the act. In other words, the striking of the deceased with a lighted lamp, negligently and intentionally thrown by the defendant, resulting in the igniting of the clothes of the deceased and thereby causing his death, under the circumstances above detailed, is sufficient to support a conviction for the crime of manslaughter.
It is unnecessary to further review the evidence, since it is ample to support the verdict of the jury....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Minton
...immediate cause of the death. He is legally accountable if the direct cause is the natural result of his criminal act. Williams v. U. S., 57 App. D.C. 253, 20 F.2d 269; Gibson v. Commonwealth, 106 Ky. 360, 50 S.W. 532, 90 Am. St.Rep. 230; 40 C.J.S., Homicide, § In passing from this phase of......
-
Thomas v. United States
...v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 72 App.D.C. 258, 113 F.2d 523. 36 Meyer v. United States, 5 Cir., 220 F. 822, 827; Williams v. United States, 57 App.D.C. 253, 20 F.2d 269. 37 Clifton v. United States, 54 App.D. C. 104, 295 F. 925; Talbert v. United States, 42 App.D.C. 1, 14, certiorari denie......
-
Fleming v. United States
...the bystander's death, even if it was subsequent to that event. Id. at 507 n.8.16 See, e.g. , Williams v. United States , 57 App.D.C. 253, 20 F.2d 269, 270 (D.C. Cir. 1927) (rejecting the argument that decedent's death was not caused by or foreseeable to the defendant where she struck the d......
-
Jordon v. Bondy, 7601.
..."Mrs. Elizabeth J. Jaynes died at Garfield Hospital 6:15 P. M. April 5, 1931. Coroner notified by Bureau." 3 Williams v. United States, 1927, 57 App.D.C. 253, 20 F.2d 269; Sanford v. United States, 1938, 69 App.D.C. 44, 98 F.2d 325. See also Cummings v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 15 F.2d ......