Curtis Coleman v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Curtis Coleman v. United States

306 F.2d 751, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 144, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4956

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 1962

Docket16728_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 306 F.2d 751 (Curtis Coleman v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curtis Coleman v. United States, 306 F.2d 751, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 144, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4956 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was tried jointly with a co-defendant for housebreaking as defined in 22 D.C.Code § 1801 (1961). We affirmed the conviction of the co-defendant. Britton v. United States, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 301 F.2d 531. As to this appellant there was testimony which gave rise to the possible application of our decision in Kelley v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 13, 236 F.2d 746, on the question of a tacit admission. The subject was gratifyingly well briefed and presented by counsel for the United States and also by counsel for the appellant. Nevertheless, we feel obliged in any event to decide the case on another ground which was reserved for our review and also presented on the appeal, namely, the inadequacy of the evidence. We have concluded upon consideration of the evidence as a whole that the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the conclusion of the evidence should have been granted.

The co-defendant Britton, whose conviction we have affirmed, was shown to have been in the building where the housebreaking occurred, but the evidence failed to bring home to this appellant either that he aided and abetted Britton by acting as “look-out” or that he participated in any actual breaking or entering of the building, essential elements of the offense charged. By using a police dog to follow a scent appellant was lo *752 cated near the scene, but neither the evidence to that effect, nor other evidence, placed him at any time in the building or established that he had collaborated with Britton in the crime itself.

The jury were not warranted in finding appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was tried jointly with a co-defendant for housebreaking as defined in 22 D.C.Code § 1801 (1961). We affirmed the conviction of the co-defendant. Britton v. United States, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 301 F.2d 531. As to this appellant there was testimony which gave rise to the possible application of our decision in Kelley v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 13, 236 F.2d 746, on the question of a tacit admission. The subject was gratifyingly well briefed and presented by counsel for the United States and also by counsel for the appellant. Nevertheless, we feel obliged in any event to decide the case on another ground which was reserved for our review and also presented on the appeal, namely, the inadequacy of the evidence. We have concluded upon consideration of the evidence as a whole that the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the conclusion of the evidence should have been granted.

The co-defendant Britton, whose conviction we have affirmed, was shown to have been in the building where the housebreaking occurred, but the evidence failed to bring home to this appellant either that he aided and abetted Britton by acting as “look-out” or that he participated in any actual breaking or entering of the building, essential elements of the offense charged. By using a police dog to follow a scent appellant was lo *752 cated near the scene, but neither the evidence to that effect, nor other evidence, placed him at any time in the building or established that he had collaborated with Britton in the crime itself.

The jury were not warranted in finding appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 F.2d 751, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 144, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-coleman-v-united-states-cadc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack