Carroll W. Stewart v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Carroll W. Stewart v. United States

324 F.2d 443, 116 U.S. App. D.C. 411, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4033

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided October 10, 1963·No. 17861·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon the appeal of a conviction for housebreaking and larceny, reversal is sought solely by reason of an alleged error of the trial judge in refusing, upon request, to charge that the jury might find appellant guilty of unlawful entry as a lesser offense necessarily included in that of housebreaking. Rule 31(c), Fed.R.Crim.P.

While in some -circumstances, as here, the elements of unlawful entry (D.C.Code § 22-3102 (1961)) are comprehended within those of housebreaking (D.C.Code § 22-1801 (1961)), the latter requires also a finding of larcenous intent. Since the jury found the appellant guilty of larceny as well as housebreaking, it must have determined that larcenous intent was present in this case. Under these circumstances we need not pursue the issue of whether the failure to give the requested charge was error, since, even if it be so regarded, it was harmless in its impact upon the jury’s disposition of the crimes charged in the indictment.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon the appeal of a conviction for housebreaking and larceny, reversal is sought solely by reason of an alleged error of the trial judge in refusing, upon request, to charge that the jury might find appellant guilty of unlawful entry as a lesser offense necessarily included in that of housebreaking. Rule 31(c), Fed.R.Crim.P.

While in some -circumstances, as here, the elements of unlawful entry (D.C.Code § 22-3102 (1961)) are comprehended within those of housebreaking (D.C.Code § 22-1801 (1961)), the latter requires also a finding of larcenous intent. Since the jury found the appellant guilty of larceny as well as housebreaking, it must have determined that larcenous intent was present in this case. Under these circumstances we need not pursue the issue of whether the failure to give the requested charge was error, since, even if it be so regarded, it was harmless in its impact upon the jury’s disposition of the crimes charged in the indictment.

Affirmed.

Carroll W. Stewart v. United States, 324 F.2d 443, 116 U.S. App. D.C. 411, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4033 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

324 F.2d 443 (Carroll W. Stewart v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related