Arnold v. District of Columbia

157 A.2d 626, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 161

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided February 2, 1960·No. Nos. 2466 and 2467·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of “colliding” and of “leaving after colliding” in violation of the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Regulations. '

His contention on this appeal is that the court improperly limited his counsel in his cross-examination of the government’s witnesses.

We have carefully examined the record and cannot say there was any abuse of discretion in this connection.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of “colliding” and of “leaving after colliding” in violation of the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Regulations. '

His contention on this appeal is that the court improperly limited his counsel in his cross-examination of the government’s witnesses.

We have carefully examined the record and cannot say there was any abuse of discretion in this connection.

Affirmed.

Arnold v. District of Columbia, 157 A.2d 626, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 161 (D.C. 1960).

Pincite

157 A.2d 626 (Arnold v. District of Columbia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.