Edwards v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Edwards v. United States

172 F.2d 884, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 310

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 1949

Docket9907

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 172 F.2d 884 (Edwards 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

Edwards v. United States, 172 F.2d 884, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 310 (D.C. Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a conviction of housebreaking and larceny. There was testimony strongly tending to show that appellant was drunk when the acts were done. The court said in its charge to the jury: “You must find, before you can acquit the defendant Edwards, that the defendant was so intoxicated that she was incapable of forming an intent.” We find no other language in the court’s charge that seems to us to explain away the quoted statement. We think it erroneous. Incapacity need not be proved or found in order to entitle a defendant to an acquittal. It is true that no proof or finding of capacity is ordinarily necessary to support a conviction. But where a specific intent is essential to the crime charged, and evidence is introduced that might create a reasonable doubt whether the defendant was sober enough to be capable of forming this intent, the jury must be instructed to acquit if they have such a doubt. Davis v. State, 54 Neb. 177, 74 N.W. 599. Cf. Holloway v. United States, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 3, 148 F.2d 665.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a conviction of housebreaking and larceny. There was testimony strongly tending to show that appellant was drunk when the acts were done. The court said in its charge to the jury: “You must find, before you can acquit the defendant Edwards, that the defendant was so intoxicated that she was incapable of forming an intent.” We find no other language in the court’s charge that seems to us to explain away the quoted statement. We think it erroneous. Incapacity need not be proved or found in order to entitle a defendant to an acquittal. It is true that no proof or finding of capacity is ordinarily necessary to support a conviction. But where a specific intent is essential to the crime charged, and evidence is introduced that might create a reasonable doubt whether the defendant was sober enough to be capable of forming this intent, the jury must be instructed to acquit if they have such a doubt. Davis v. State, 54 Neb. 177, 74 N.W. 599. Cf. Holloway v. United States, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 3, 148 F.2d 665.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 F.2d 884, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-united-states-cadc-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack