Edwards v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Edwards v. United States

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

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided February 9, 1949·No. 9907·Published·Cited by 24 cases

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.

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

Pincite

172 F.2d 884 (Edwards v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related