Edward R. Hudson v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Edward R. Hudson v. United States

229 F.2d 36, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 153, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3535

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 12, 1956

Docket12575_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 229 F.2d 36 (Edward R. Hudson 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

Edward R. Hudson v. United States, 229 F.2d 36, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 153, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3535 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Hudson was indicted, tried and convicted on a charge of manslaughter. As of the time of the alleged offense he and two others had been drinking together for an undetermined period of time. They were near the sea wall at the Tidal Basin when they became involved in some sort of altercation. Hudson shoved the other two men into the water. One swam to safety, and the other drowned.

Upon this appeal Hudson urges (1) that the indictment was faulty; (2) that the evidence was insufficient; and (3) that his counsel, and not he, was asked to speak just prior to sentence. He did not attack the indictment in the trial court, 1 and, in any event, we think the indictment was amply sufficient to advise him of the offense, enable him to defend, and protect him against subsequent jeopardy. The evidence was ample to support the view that Hudson caused the death in the midst of a physical altercation and by an act reasonably calculated to cause serious bodily harm. As to the pre-sentence statement, both Hudson and *37 his trial attorney were present and stood together before the bench, and the attorney made a brief plea for clemency. The court did address counsel by name in making its inquiry, but, so long as both were present and what was expected was made plain, we think all reasonable requirements of the law were met. We find no error in the foregoing respects.

Affirmed.

1

. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. rule 12(b) (2), 18 U.S.C.A.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Hudson was indicted, tried and convicted on a charge of manslaughter. As of the time of the alleged offense he and two others had been drinking together for an undetermined period of time. They were near the sea wall at the Tidal Basin when they became involved in some sort of altercation. Hudson shoved the other two men into the water. One swam to safety, and the other drowned.

Upon this appeal Hudson urges (1) that the indictment was faulty; (2) that the evidence was insufficient; and (3) that his counsel, and not he, was asked to speak just prior to sentence. He did not attack the indictment in the trial court, 1 and, in any event, we think the indictment was amply sufficient to advise him of the offense, enable him to defend, and protect him against subsequent jeopardy. The evidence was ample to support the view that Hudson caused the death in the midst of a physical altercation and by an act reasonably calculated to cause serious bodily harm. As to the pre-sentence statement, both Hudson and *37 his trial attorney were present and stood together before the bench, and the attorney made a brief plea for clemency. The court did address counsel by name in making its inquiry, but, so long as both were present and what was expected was made plain, we think all reasonable requirements of the law were met. We find no error in the foregoing respects.

Affirmed.

1

. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. rule 12(b) (2), 18 U.S.C.A.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 F.2d 36, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 153, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-r-hudson-v-united-states-cadc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack