Dorothy M. Gray v. United States

260 F.2d 483
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedOctober 27, 1958
Docket14359_1
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 260 F.2d 483 (Dorothy M. Gray 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
Dorothy M. Gray v. United States, 260 F.2d 483 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted with another for violations of the narcotic laws. 1 She was tried alone on two counts of a five-count indictment, three of the counts having been dismissed on motion of the United States. She appeals her conviction on the ground, among others, that the court erroneously instructed the jury that the law provides that a person aiding and abetting a principal offender may be charged as a principal. The objection the defense made to the instruction was that it was not justified by the facts in that the alleged principal — the co-indictee — had been held to be not guilty and the case against him had been dismissed. This objection was not sound. As said in Meredith v. United States, 4 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 535, 542,

“conviction of the principal actor is not a prerequisite to conviction of the aider and abettor. It need only be established that the act constituting the offense was in fact committed by someone. * * * ”

Accord, Colosacco v. United States, 10 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 165, 167.

Since the evidence against appellant was quite strong we have no occasion in this case to exercise our discretion to consider other possible defects in the instructions not called to the attention of the trial court. Indeed, under all the circumstances, it seems probable that a more explicit and complete instruction on aiding and abetting would have harmed rather than helped accused’s case, and that the failure by trial counsel to ask for, or by the trial court to give, such an instruction was not in any way prejudicial to the accused.

We have carefully considered all the appellant’s contentions, ably presented by counsel appointed by this court. Finding no reversible error in respect of the instruction, or in any other respect, the judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. 68A Stat. 550 (1954), as amended, 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) (Supp. V, 1958); 35 Stat. 614 (1909), as amended, 21 U.S.C. § 174 (Supp. V, 1958), 21 U.S.C.A. § 174.

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

Related

Eli Borochov v. Islamic Republic of Iran
94 F.4th 1053 (D.C. Circuit, 2024)
Tyree v. United States
942 A.2d 629 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2008)
Gordon v. Eighth Judicial District Court
913 P.2d 240 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1996)
Howard v. United States
656 A.2d 1106 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1995)
United States v. Rayful Edmond, III
924 F.2d 261 (D.C. Circuit, 1991)
Adams v. United States
558 A.2d 348 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1989)
Morriss v. United States
554 A.2d 784 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1989)
Murchison v. United States
486 A.2d 77 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1984)
Standefer v. United States
447 U.S. 10 (Supreme Court, 1980)
United States v. William Ruffin
613 F.2d 408 (Second Circuit, 1979)
United States v. F. W. Standefer
610 F.2d 1076 (Third Circuit, 1979)
Shanahan v. United States
354 A.2d 524 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1976)
Strickland v. United States
332 A.2d 746 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1975)
United States v. Grasso
356 F. Supp. 814 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1973)
State v. Morales
269 A.2d 530 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1970)
Hanley v. State
451 P.2d 852 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 F.2d 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorothy-m-gray-v-united-states-cadc-1958.