Few v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Few v. United States

248 A.2d 125, 1968 D.C. App. LEXIS 227

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 1968

DocketNos. 4556, 4562

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 A.2d 125 (Few v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Few v. United States, 248 A.2d 125, 1968 D.C. App. LEXIS 227 (D.C. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These two appeals, consolidated for hearing, are from convictions for petit larceny.¹ In each case, money was obtained from the complaining witness by trick through a procedure variously known as the flimflam, faith and trust, or confidence game, although the trick takes different forms, essentially it is performed by two operators, ostensibly strangers to each other, and the victim is persuaded to turn over to one of the operators a sum of money to demonstrate his trustworthiness as a prerequisite to obtaining some easy money. After the victim has turned over his money, the operators disappear and the victim receives nothing.

Appellant says that the evidence against him was not sufficient to establish his guilt, but the record discloses ample evidence to support a conviction even though appellant’s partner was never apprehended.

Appellant also argues that even if the evidence may have proved him guilty of [126]*126some crime, it did not prove him guilty of the crime charged, namely, petit larceny. This argument is answered in Reed v. United States, D.C.App., 239 A.2d 156 (1968). See also Williams v. United States, D.C.App., 240 A.2d 131 (1968).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These two appeals, consolidated for hearing, are from convictions for petit larceny.¹ In each case, money was obtained from the complaining witness by trick through a procedure variously known as the flimflam, faith and trust, or confidence game, although the trick takes different forms, essentially it is performed by two operators, ostensibly strangers to each other, and the victim is persuaded to turn over to one of the operators a sum of money to demonstrate his trustworthiness as a prerequisite to obtaining some easy money. After the victim has turned over his money, the operators disappear and the victim receives nothing.

Appellant says that the evidence against him was not sufficient to establish his guilt, but the record discloses ample evidence to support a conviction even though appellant’s partner was never apprehended.

Appellant also argues that even if the evidence may have proved him guilty of [126]*126some crime, it did not prove him guilty of the crime charged, namely, petit larceny. This argument is answered in Reed v. United States, D.C.App., 239 A.2d 156 (1968). See also Williams v. United States, D.C.App., 240 A.2d 131 (1968).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.2d 125, 1968 D.C. App. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/few-v-united-states-dc-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack