Henderson v. United States

172 F.2d 289, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 295, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2697
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJanuary 31, 1949
DocketNo. 9920
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 172 F.2d 289 (Henderson 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
Henderson v. United States, 172 F.2d 289, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 295, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2697 (D.C. Cir. 1949).

Opinion

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced for violation of Section 1801, Title 22, of the District of Columbia Code, in that he entered the apartment of one Haselden with intent to commit a felony.1 The question presented by the appeal is whether the place which the appellant admittedly entered was part of “any apartment or room”. The apartment was on the first floor. The place which appellant entered was a porch. This porch was set back into the apartment house building, so that the walls of the building formed three walls around the porch. Similar porches were on the floors above. Across the fourth side of this first-floor porch, the only open side, was a heavy iron grating extending from six and a half to seven feet upwards from the floor. There was an open space of about two and a half feet between the top of the grating and the ceiling, but there was no door, window, or other such opening through the grating. The only door to the porch was from the living room of the apartment. Two bedroom windows of the apartment opened on the porch. At the time of the alleged offense, this porch was used in part for storage and laundry purposes.

At about two o’clock in the morning on May 3, 1948, appellant climbed the iron grating, through the space between the top of the grating and the ceiling of the porch, and attempted to break into one of the bedroom windows. He was apprehended on the spot.

There are cases dealing generally with the question of entering porches,2 but porches are of such an infinite variety that it seems unnecessary to discuss them. On the facts in the present case as above stated, we hold that this porch was part of the apartment and that when the appellant entered it, he entered the apartment within the meaning of the statute. In this we agree with the District Court, and its judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.

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

Related

Johnson v. United States
293 A.2d 269 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1972)
Roy Irby v. United States
390 F.2d 432 (D.C. Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 F.2d 289, 84 U.S. App. D.C. 295, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-united-states-cadc-1949.